- M. Lee Smith Publishers
It's a fact that we spend more time planning the start of a relationship than the end of it. That axiom, so painfully clear in our personal lives, now has some obvious business-world examples as well.<br />
<br />
Last year, RadioShack made news when it reduced its force by 400 workers. Employees got the news in an e-mail that read, "The workforce reduction notification is currently in progress. Unfortunately your position is one which is being eliminated."<br />
That might not be the most cold-hearted way of spreading the news. RadioShack might have programmed a toy robot to roll from office to office, its electronic voice bleating, "You are fired. Have a nice day." Hmmm, I don't know which would be worse.<br />
Ford Motor Company may have found an even more impersonal way of announcing its 40,000-person layoff last September when its agreement with the United Auto Workers (UAW) to halve its 80,000 hourly workers was leaked to national news networks.<br />
<br />
Katie Couric may be perky, but she still isn't the best medium through which to learn of your impending unemployment. Ford: Where Mass Communication Is Job One.<br />
<br />
Much has been written about the art of firing employees, and strangely enough, the RadioShack/Ford approaches follow some of the rules:<br />
· Control the communication. Well, an e-mail certainly does that. <br />
· Deliver the news clearly and factually. That's the job of the morning news. <br />
<br />
But the RadioShack/Ford approaches violate other rules:<br />
· Deliver the news personally in a safe environment. I can't say that getting out the word by e-mail or national news adds much of a "personal" touch. <br />
· Announce the terminations on a midweek morning to give employees the time to say goodbye. That's better advice than the thinking that seemed to operate here: "Pick a busy news day to minimize public attention on the firing." <br />
<br />
Two other common rules are "arrange for an exit interview" (to learn how to improve your workforce) and "discharge with dignity" (in part to avoid angering an ex-employee to the point of litigation). I don't think Ford or RadioShack had those rules in mind -- though I guess the approach could have been less dignified: They could have let the employee and the firing authority duke it out on Jerry Springer.<br />
<br />
No laughing matter<br />
The situation would be funnier if it weren't so serious. Job losses are cited as a contributing factor in many diagnoses of stress or anxiety disorders. Indeed, poorly handled terminations have led to serious workplace violence.<br />
<br />
At the same time, they can have a significant impact on the workplace -- for better or worse. As Chris Musselwhite wrote in August 2006 on Inc.com, terminations "can be an opportunity to strengthen or build a culture of respect, accountability and trust -- or . . . foster a culture of fear and secrecy at all levels. Other employees are watching."<br />
<br />
What will employers learn by patterning RadioShack and Ford -- that impersonal communication is the best way to handle life-changing issues? That you should raise your employment issues publicly in the media rather than seeking internal solutions? How will the UAW members ever again use the words "union loyalty" in the same sentence?<br />
<br />
As Musselwhite noted, how you fire your employees makes an impression on your remaining staff. It also affects your recruitment pool as former employees share their stories about you. Finally, as your litigator, I'm very interested in how you let people go -- because the disgruntled manager you fired too bluntly today might be your lead defense witness at a trial tomorrow. Oops. It's time to increase our settlement offer.<br />
<br />
As my colleague John Phillips notes in his 12 Danger Zones for Supervisors training video on the "Danger Zone" of terminations, it's hard to fire somebody correctly. It takes preparation, training, and skill. It's so easy (and wrong) to resort to the benign "little white lie" to spare the employee's feelings from the true cause for termination.<br />
<br />
Moreover, it's emotionally difficult to look an employee in the eye and explain why the layoff is occurring. For those reasons, an impersonal e-mail or voice-mail message is an easier alternative. But it's never a better one.<br />
<br />
I've often joked that to preserve your right to terminate at-will employees, you should have their daily computer log-on say, "Hello, [insert name here]. Today could be the last day of your employment. Have a great day!" I always meant that to be a teaching tool. I never expected RadioShack to take me seriously.<br />
<br />
Mark I. Schickman is a partner with Freeland Cooper & Foreman in San Francisco. You can reach him at (415) 541-0200 or <a href="http://schickman@freelandlaw.com.">schickman@freelandlaw.com.</a><br />
Copyright 2007 M. Lee Smith Publishers LLC. CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAW LETTER The contents of CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAW LETTER are intended for general information and should not be construed as legal advice or opinion. Readers in need of legal advice should retain the services of competent counsel. The State Bar of California does not designate attorneys as board certified in labor law.
