By Mary T. O’Sullivan, MSOL
“Leadership is not about being in charge. It is about taking care of those in your charge.” Simon Sinek
At least once in every working person’s life, they’ll be let go from their job. There are numerous reasons to fire or layoff employees, but if improperly handled, the termination style mangers choose can lead to more trouble later. Studies have shown that people have been let go in ways that were careless, cruel, or downright cowardly. There are multiple cases of improper termination conversations that led directly to lawsuits, like threatening to “see that you never work in this industry again”. Or more recently, at the Justice Department, the employee’s computer powers down in the middle of the workday, followed by delivery of a termination letter. Haven’t we all heard of employee badges no longer working in card readers, names on parking spots removed, the person’s email account is deleted, IT access goes away, and their calls go unanswered? And the handwriting is on the wall the person’s Zoom account expires in the middle of a meeting! Ghosting employees in this way is unprofessional and just plain sloppy.
Other reasons include blaming the employee for the supervisor’s own mistakes. Believe it or not, many supervisors project their own failures onto a particular employee. There are tales of supervisors who blame their own poor communication, lack of organization or mismanagement onto the employee, rewriting the reality of their own failures to save face rather than to admit they are wrong. Also, humiliating people in public makes the supervisor look weak and foolish; escorting someone out of the office in front of coworkers or telling an employee off in a meeting turns termination into a spectacle, which no one wants to witness. It’s a bad look for the supervisor and the company.
And then there is the surprise firing, when there’s been no feedback, no discussion, and suddenly—boom, you’re out. It feels like a betrayal because it is. Maybe there was a miscommunication, missed phone call, ignored voicemail, email going to spam. Before a firing decision is made, every attempt to connect with the employee should be made. People are not mind readers. If you want to let someone go, have the professional and common courtesy to inform them.
What’s it like to open your email and discover a laundry list of performance issues with a closing note that you’re no longer part of the team? Or worse, a text pops up telling you due to “poor performance”, without any explanation, you are out. Unless there is some kind of threat involved, firing a person via email or text is cold, lazy, and unacceptable. And about as impersonal as it comes.
The same goes for firing a person who is on vacation. This practice seems like another level of disrespect, however even though you may feel devalued and affronted, it’s not illegal. Most states in the United States are “at-will” employment states, which means your employer (or you) can fire you at any time, without cause. Unless you can prove that the action is retaliatory, you are out of luck. Come in and pack up your boxes and be happy you’re no longer in that toxic environment.
For people in higher education, especially for adjuncts, the reasons for termination become even foggier. Lack of notice for contract non-renewal without transparency or without adequate communication makes the person’s job feel even more inconsequential and unimportant than the standard paltry adjunct pay. Without clear and detailed reasons for why an adjunct’s contract is not being renewed, it’s more difficult for the person to address performance issues or clearly understand the administrator’s decision. Studies have shown that one of the major drivers of terminating an adjunct is often over reliance on student feedback. While student evaluations can offer some valuable understanding, using them as the major or sole basis for termination is tricky, as students can easily be influenced by factors beyond an adjunct’s control. Until you actually speak to your adjunct, you are treating them unfairly. In a 2017 study reported by Science Direct, a platform dedicated to scientific, health, and technical literature, “When student ratings are used in personnel decisions, it is critical that they be used appropriately…”, and not as the sole basis of dismissing an employee. Another study, cited in Academe Magazine, found that “There is strong evidence that student responses to questions of ‘effectiveness’ do not measure teaching effectiveness.” Direct person to person communication builds trust with the person in question as well as the rest of the university’s community.
The biggest blow to a person’s confidence, self-worth, and well-being is finding out they’ve been replaced on social media. Imagine the shock of checking an Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, or X account to see their replacement’s employment announcement! Otherwise known as the Instagram ambush termination. The reverberations from the resulting distress can last for weeks. Uncertainty and anxiety increase, and morale and trust erode among other employees as well as the target. It certainly has a negative impact on the reputation of the organization as word cycles within student and faculty realms, especially if the person is well known and highly thought of in the industry and the community.
Poor termination practices leave a bad taste in everyone’s mouth. They not only damage people’s lives and corrode the culture, they impact employee morale and the organization’s reputation. Firing employees without dignity, due process, or clear communication undermines trust, invites legal risk, and signals a failure of leadership. Terminations can’t always be avoided; they are a part of the workplace. But when a termination is carried out carelessly, cruelly, and with laziness and sloppiness, it acts as a blot on the employer’s integrity. Organizations committed to long-term success must ensure that their termination practices reflect the same values they promote on their websites and in their mission statements—fairness, transparency, and respect.
“Managers that are too cowardly to talk to their employees about behavior that they don’t like until they have talked themselves up to firing the employees… well they shouldn’t be managers, and they certainly aren’t leaders!” – Anonymous
