You both know when it doesn’t work. Stacking is getting harder and harder, and in the end, it’s just a chicken game to see who pulls the plug first. No one likes to terminate a position or be fired, but it is one of the necessities in the business world.
However, one executive suggested there was a better way to handle it – and on the contrary, it involved slowing down the whole process. Writing for Harvard Business Review, businessman David Siegel supported what he called a transparent separation. If that sounds a little too close to conscious openness to you, don’t worry: Siegel doesn’t want to create a lifestyle brand.
“With transparent separation, you cannot blind an inefficient employee or fire him immediately,” he wrote. Instead, you encourage him to leave on his own by letting him know that he will be given away in time and need to start looking for a new job as soon as possible.” There are a few reasons Siegel set up the process this way. He believes it is a more humane approach aimed at protecting employee dignity and opening up better communication with employers. It also acknowledges that conformity is everything and that one worker may simply be more suited to another position or another company; In other words, being fired doesn’t always reflect the value of an employee as an employee.
This method requires solid boundaries and clear communication, perhaps more than other types of breakups. But the pay is meaningful for the entire company if done properly. Read Siegel’s work to dig deeper into his process, reasoning, and results.