(Published August 4, 2008)
My husband is a great source of inspiration. Last week, he suggested I write about four-day workweeks. The other day, he suggested that I write about the "proper" way to fire someone. When I asked him a few questions to determine what he meant, it turned out that he wasn't thinking about firing an employee for misconduct or poor performance, but about a reduction-in-force — what has come to be called a layoff, but what really isn't.
Semantically, he was correct; it's not really a layoff unless there is a reasonable expectation of recall. Most of the large "layoffs" we've been reading about in the newspaper are, technically, mass firings, since there is no real expectation of recall. But since the word "firing" has a negative connotation, most people, aside from my husband, shy away from using it in reference to a reduction-in-force.
The perception of a firing is that there is somehow fault attached; that the employee must have done something wrong. That's how we came to start using the term "layoff" to mean a no-fault, reduction-in-force firing.
I've written before about the importance of clear communication in the termination process. But one of the things we really should be communicating not only to our employees, but also to their potential new employers is an accurate perception of why they were let go. If the employee was fired for poor performance or for misconduct, we should say so. If the employee was let go in a reduction-in-force and they did nothing wrong, they just were on the wrong list when the final termination decisions were made, we need to make that clear, too.
I've been on both sides of the desk. I've been the one delivering the bad news, and I've been the one who received it. I've been laid off with an expectation of recall, and I've also been "involuntarily terminated" when there was no question of misconduct or poor performance, but also no real possibility that I would be returned to work.
What we really need is a new word. "Firing" has too negative a connotation. "Layoff" implies recalls that may or may not exist. "Reduction in force" is too long and awkward. "Termination" can be either voluntary or involuntary.
I've been trying to think of a word that will give employers and employees the perception of, "This employee was let go not because he or she was a poor performer or because of any misconduct, but because we could not afford to keep him or her employed any longer." If you have any suggestions, feel free to post them below.
Catherine Bannon is an HR consultant in Marshfield, MA (catherine.bannon@gmail.com). Bannon worked for 10 years in HR management before starting her consulting practice.
Home
