6 ms·

I fired someone via e-mail earlier this week. There were a lot of elements that went into the "best way" to do it, and I don't think it's an objective fact that

I fired someone via e-mail earlier this week. There were a lot of elements that went into the "best way" to do it, and I don't think it's an objective fact that face-to-face is best. I've fired people face-to-face before too and it's usually not pretty. One benefit of being fired by asynchronous communication is that you maintain more dignity/privacy and can re-emerge after you've had a little bit of time to get your composure together. One time when I fired an employee in person, he immediately started to sob and made some statements that I believe he instantly began to regret (which were not personally demeaning and which I don't hold against him). I think he would've preferred to have been fired by e-mail. I think people overthink this, and I think I overthought it when I just did it this week. The fact is that when you fire people, most of them are going to be upset, and they'll find something to rationalize that emotion no matter what you do. If you have a face-to-face, they'll say "Can you believe he was mocking us by wearing his ball cap, or his old tennis shoes, or those jeans he wore the same day he hired all of us, or that polo with the company logo on it like the company hasn't already been besmirched? How disrespectful!" or they'll just completely fabricate something like "Wow, he was so aloof in that meeting, what a mean guy". What it really comes down to is that most people are going to look for "facts" that support their emotional perspective, not emotions that are congruent with the factual perspective. The pre-recorded call firings are done that way to make sure the phrasing is perfect. Most likely the lawyer has already written the script and they do several takes to perfect the firing executive's inflection, tone, etc. I don't think this is objectively worse than firing someone in person or via e-mail either. For the record, the employee I fired stated that the firing was "classless and vile" despite the inclusion of a generous and completely optional severance package, an immaculately respectful email that politely informed her the position was being eliminated and stated that we hoped we'd work together in the future, and so forth. It was honestly one of the classiest firings in which I've been involved, but like I said, to the fired person, there's always a grudge to find if they want to find one, and she wanted to find one. Her grudge is that I didn't "give the customary notice period" for a firing, which afaik absolutely doesn't exist anywhere except in the few cases that fall under the WARN act (under which companies are entitled to pay a severance equal to the legally-mandated notice period in lieu of notice).

jalfresi 12y ago
I disagree. Firing via email or pre-recorded voicemail saves YOU the embarrassment of having to sit through the employees sobs. In my opinion, firing is a failure of management, and one of the consequences and fixes to ensure a failure like that doesn't occur again is to witness the very real fall out the error has on real people; that is your failure was so grand as to have a grown man in tears. Firing via email or pre-recorded message is a way to avoid looking your failure of responsibility in the eye
- eropple 12y ago
  Agreed. Short of termination for criminal or grossly inappropriate behavior--that is, the kind of action that is not within an employer's mandate to handle--a firing is management trying to fix management's mistakes at as little cost to management as possible. The literal least you can do in that position is wield the axe yourself and take a good look at the consequences of your screwup.
- cookiecaper 12y ago
  I mean, you're welcome to feel that way if you want. I know a lot of people do feel that way. I also know a lot of people would rather not have those personal moments visible to their boss just to prove a point that he failed and that's why he has to watch a grown man cry. I didn't say it's always better to fire asynchronously, I just said it's not objectively worse. I also understand that your platitude on firing is transparent propaganda, but that's neither here nor there to this discussion -- whoever did or didn't do things that precipitated or mandated the firing, the fact is that it must happen, and that not everyone reacts the same way or prefers the same style. I should note I also state this from the perspective of one who has been fired (in all occurrences, I'm using "fired" as a catch-all for all instances where a job is involuntarily terminated; this can mean the contract ends, the company or unit is closing, or performance was unsatisfactory to the bosses). I think I would've preferred to be fired remotely in all instances except one (where I wasn't really fired, but my already-turned-in two weeks notice was prematurely ended). I wouldn't think the bosses were "cowards" for depriving me of the opportunity to personally and physically guilt them, but like I said, to each his own. The takeaway here is that the people doing the firing shouldn't concern themselves too abundantly about whether the employee is going to appreciate the atmosphere of the firing or not, because news flash: they won't.

jalfresi 12y ago

I disagree. Firing via email or pre-recorded voicemail saves YOU the embarrassment of having to sit through the employees sobs. In my opinion, firing is a failure of management, and one of the consequences and fixes to ensure a failure like that doesn't occur again is to witness the very real fall out the error has on real people; that is your failure was so grand as to have a grown man in tears. Firing via email or pre-recorded message is a way to avoid looking your failure of responsibility in the eye

eropple 12y ago
Agreed. Short of termination for criminal or grossly inappropriate behavior--that is, the kind of action that is not within an employer's mandate to handle--a firing is management trying to fix management's mistakes at as little cost to management as possible. The literal least you can do in that position is wield the axe yourself and take a good look at the consequences of your screwup.
cookiecaper 12y ago
I mean, you're welcome to feel that way if you want. I know a lot of people do feel that way. I also know a lot of people would rather not have those personal moments visible to their boss just to prove a point that he failed and that's why he has to watch a grown man cry. I didn't say it's always better to fire asynchronously, I just said it's not objectively worse. I also understand that your platitude on firing is transparent propaganda, but that's neither here nor there to this discussion -- whoever did or didn't do things that precipitated or mandated the firing, the fact is that it must happen, and that not everyone reacts the same way or prefers the same style. I should note I also state this from the perspective of one who has been fired (in all occurrences, I'm using "fired" as a catch-all for all instances where a job is involuntarily terminated; this can mean the contract ends, the company or unit is closing, or performance was unsatisfactory to the bosses). I think I would've preferred to be fired remotely in all instances except one (where I wasn't really fired, but my already-turned-in two weeks notice was prematurely ended). I wouldn't think the bosses were "cowards" for depriving me of the opportunity to personally and physically guilt them, but like I said, to each his own. The takeaway here is that the people doing the firing shouldn't concern themselves too abundantly about whether the employee is going to appreciate the atmosphere of the firing or not, because news flash: they won't.