Contents

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
Chapter 1 The Firing Squad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Things That Go Wrong:
The Importance of Doing It Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Horrors of the Firing Squad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Employees Versus Contractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
It’s About Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Psychology of a Fired Human Being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Chapter 2 Firing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Misfits, Poor Fits, and Screw-Ups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Where Should People Go Next? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
How Do I Help the Employees? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
You Are Fired! Surprise! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Help Employees Understand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Legal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Dignity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Preserving Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Making the Move . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
The Aftermath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Dealing With Angry People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Chapter 3 Laying Off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Not Much Different From Firing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Dignity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
x CONTENTS

Thank Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Help Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
The Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Let Others Know What Happened . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Send the Right Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
The Aftermath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Chapter 4 More Food for Thought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
The Perfect Prescription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Do Some Research and Be Flexible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Golden Parachutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Golden Handcuffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Voluntary Redundancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
When Things Go Wrong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Laws, Laws, and More Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Unions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
The Exit Management Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Biases and Decision Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Exit Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
The Global Enterprise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
 About the Author
History is written by the victors.
–Winston Churchill

Matt Shlosberg is one of the most sought-after management consultants.

He has assisted dozens of multinational corporations and governments
with solving complex management problems, resulting in a multibillion-
dollar impact.
Matt currently serves as the managing director of Hanna Concern, a
management consulting firm specializing in general management, strat-
egy, leadership, organizational behavior, innovation management, mar-
keting, and globalization.
In addition to consulting, Matt teaches leadership, general manage-
ment, and innovation management in corporate universities.
Matt has received his MBA from the University of Maryland at
College Park (Robert H. Smith School of Business) and has completed
graduate- and executive-level trainingin leadership and executive man-
agement at Cornell University, University of Notre Dame, and INSEAD
Business School.
 Preface
The central message of this book is that layoffs and firings have to be
done right. Layoffs and firings do happen. It’s just the way business is
done. But many companies mishandle terminations, resulting in law-
suits, mass employee exodus, theft, loss of productivity, brand destruc-
tion, and many other sicknesses.
The first chapter of the book addresses just that—why terminations
should be executed correctly. The second and third chapters talk about
firings and layoffs respectively, explaining how they should be handled.
The fourth chapter gives you more food for thought by discussing some
complex circumstances and provides some generic advice.
Although each chapter of the book can be read on its own, it’s impor-
tant to use a systemic approach. It’s not enough to follow individual
pieces of advice addressed in this book. Instead, readers should create a
system or a process of talent management, build everything they learn
into it, and make sure all the pieces talk to each other.
It’s important to remember that this book addresses the manage-
ment portion of terminations and only barely touches the legal aspects.
Because every country and every state has its own set of laws, com-
panies should consult their attorneys before implementing any advice
they find in this book.
One of the key notions introduced in this book is the concept of
aggravations. These aggravations arise from terminations being per-
formed incorrectly and result in devastating consequences. Although
aggravations aren’t mentioned in every part of the book, avoiding them is
the central strategy discussed here.
I’ve spent over a decade providing management advice to global firms.
It’s always been my policy to keep all engagements confidential, and I
have never broken this rule. This book features stories and examples from
some of my clients. Although many of them are well-known firms, I pur-
posefully suppressed any company and employee names in order to com-
ply with this privacy policy.
xiv PREFACE

If you are still wondering why you should read this book, please read
the fun case below. It seems absurd, but cases like this do happen.

An employee quit abruptly and sued the company for sexual

harassment, stating she didn’t really quit voluntarily but was forced
into the position where any reasonable person would quit. She
stated sexual harassment was expressed when she saw two male
employees kissing in the hallway. She thought it was inappropri-
ate and felt uncomfortable working in such a firm. She won the
lawsuit for both sexual harassment and, believe it or not, wrongful
termination. But this is just the beginning of the story. Following
the court’s decision that this is construed as sexual harassment, the
company asked the two male employees to not kiss again in pub-
lic. The two employees sued the company for discrimination and
won under the premise that the firm was discriminating against
gay personnel.

It sounds crazy. But you wouldn’t believe how many times I’ve heard
this from customers only to have them call me later and ask for help in
dealing with crazy cases like this. Crazy cases seem rare until they happen
to you. But they do happen to the best of us.
The point of the book is to prevent such cases from occurring. If you
want to learn how to do that, read on.
—Matt Shlosberg
 CHAPTER 1

The Firing Squad

Introduction
The moment I sat down and started to write this book, I received a
phone call from a friend who is the founder and chief technology officer
(CTO) of the number-one company in his field. He called to tell me
that he was about to lay off four vice presidents. He asked me if I could
use one of them in my firm. He proceeded to give me a great recom-
mendation on the person he was referring. He had recognized that it was
the chief executive officer’s (CEO’s) mistake in hiring these people in the
first place—he knew the reorganization was coming and these positions
would be eliminated.
At first I was impressed. He did two things most executives don’t do
when they let people go: he recognized the source of this mistake and he
was trying to help these people find jobs.
But then I got startled. His vice presidents, the very top people he was
about to let go, didn’t know they were going to lose their jobs the very
next day. They knew nothing about the impending financial reorganiza-
tion. They didn’t know their firm was in financial danger. Frankly, some
of them didn’t even know what their role was. If his VPs were unaware of
company issues, what did it say about rank-and-file employees?
As my friend continued, he alarmed me even more. Neither he nor
the CEO was going to personally get involved in the layoff. Nor was it
delegated to Human Resources (HR)! In fact, his head of HR was laid
off just two months earlier under the premise that HR isn’t a needed
function at all. The CEO decided that this layoff was a financial func-
tion. The chief financial officer (CFO) was appointed to run the firing
squad.
2 LETTING PEOPLE GO

I can almost predict what will happen next. These executives will get
offended. Some may file lawsuits. Others will call the lucky ones that kept
their jobs and breed doubt into the organization. The surviving employ-
ees will wonder what happened to their peers. People on the bottom will
lose trust in senior leadership, spread rumors, and start looking for jobs.
Productivity will become a concept of the past. Customers will no longer
matter. A wave of negativity will slowly grow into a cancer that will eat
this ultrainnovative organization and feed it for lunch to competition.
Does this sound familiar?
Most leaders don’t recognize what goes on in people’s heads when lay-
offs and firings occur. A lot of them don’t see problems even when these
problems are clearly shown to them. In fact, most managers believe that
firings and layoffs are just unpleasant things in life that must be done and
gotten over with. What they don’t realize is that poor execution of layoffs
and firings destroy their organizations, often making them even worse off
than they were before!
Let’s look back at the case I just described. We can point out a lot
of things that went wrong, but it’s too late to change anything. Well-
executed layoffs start early and begin with great leadership coming from
the top. This particular organization has built a great legacy. Its product
is embedded in over 300 consumer goods that are used by tens of mil-
lions of people around the world. But this legacy will get destroyed with
a cancer that was essentially produced by the same leadership that created
this legacy in the first place.
Remember the old saying “Every system is perfectly designed to
achieve exactly the results it gets”? In other words, if this organization gets
destroyed, it will happen because the leadership acted the way it did and
not because the recently departed staff became disgruntled.
I’ve worked and consulted for dozens of organizations over the years
and the pattern seems steady. Senior leadership mismanages layoffs and
then blames organizational failure on employees who became disgrun-
tled for some unknown reason. Sometimes leaders don’t even notice the
behavioral transformation and manage dysfunctional organizations. One
CEO that went through rounds of layoffs concluded in a conversation
with me that all people are incompetent. He now spends 95% of his time
managing emergencies. Growth, good customer service, loyalty, and faith
in leadership are unknown concepts in his organization. Management of
 THE FIRING SQUAD 3

this so-called incompetence became such a routine task for him that he
no longer recognizes that his organization can behave any differently. He
isn’t managing change. He is reactively managing daily operations.
Another example I’ve seen is perhaps the extreme illustration of lay-
offs hurting the firm. Years ago, I was a consultant for a global firm head-
quartered in Norway. Located in Baltimore, our unit was in charge of
development of one of the firm’s key products and was led by the firm’s
CTO. One day, a senior executive from Norway arrived in our office for
a tour. He walked around, introduced himself, and gave us a beautiful
speech about the future of the firm. He also told us that he wanted to set
up a global product testing center in our facility. This center would be
responsible for the testing of all products produced by the firm around
the world. He left everyone excited about the future. A week after he left,
the VP of marketing for the United States showed up in our office. He
gathered everyone in the cafeteria and announced that our guest from a
week ago was unimpressed with what he saw and our unit was being shut
down. He told the staff that everyone will be laid off within a week or
two. He then asked employees to pack all company belongings, inventory
them, and deliver them to another company facility located in Virginia.
What do you think employees did? Not a single one continued to
perform work! Young staffers spent the remainder of their tenure playing
video games. The more experienced crew and folks with families spent
time looking for jobs. Managers didn’t care to control anyone. They were
busy seeking jobs for themselves. One manager took the initiative to
rent a truck and deliver the company belongings to the other office, as
promised. However, half of the company hardware managed to disappear
from the truck and later found itself for sale on the internet or in other
employees’ homes.
So what went wrong here? This employer thought the layoff was han-
dled properly. People were given a two-week notice. But employees saw
something different. First, the gentleman from Norway lied. As a result,
employees lost trust in senior leadership. Second, they wanted a senior
leader from Norway to come and explain to them what happened. This
was a manufacturing unit and they wanted a manufacturing executive to
perform the layoff. Instead, they were let go by a junior executive from
another division. This seemed like a spit in their faces. Third, they were
expected to help the company move its belongings. They felt like this
4 LETTING PEOPLE GO

company hadn’t been loyal to them, but they were expected to stay loyal
to the company. Finally, there was no explanation, no severance, no assis-
tance with job finding, no senior leadership to mentor the upset person-
nel, and no sign of the CTO, who was quietly laid off the night before
the announcement.

Things That Go Wrong:

The Importance of Doing It Right
Companies don’t let staffers go just because they feel like it. They typi-
cally do so to correct a problem or to improve the bottom line. Regardless
of the reasons, companies have positive end goals in mind.
But what are some of the things that can go wrong? Experience shows
that there can be a myriad of things.
Unemployment costs. Most companies believe they will save money
when they let people go. But a lot of them spend more money on
employee termination than payroll. One telecommunications company
spent millions in legal fees when its terminated employees suspected they
were let go due to age discrimination. A large car parts manufacturer
was hit with huge early retirement costs when it laid off a part of its
workforce. A large technology company paid out huge severance pack-
ages equivalent to a six months’ salary when it let people go before the
economic downturn only to rehire them two months later.
Opportunity costs. Sometimes you will find that reduction in demand
for your product will result in reduction in resources needed to execute.
This can be a good reason to reduce your staff. If that’s the case, go for
it! But every now and then companies lay people off without realizing
how this reduction in workforce will impact the business. The truth is
that every company should be lean. If it is lean, it should never be able
to find people to lay off. If it’s easy for the firm to identify thousands
of people it can do without, these people shouldn’t have been working
for the firm in the first place. Great companies should lay off during good
economic times, not when things go bad. I witnessed an example in early
2002 when a telecommunications company laid off a large number of
its customer service staff. A financially oriented CEO was hoping that
customers wouldn’t notice that their on-hold time with customer ser-
vice went from 0 to 5 minutes. Not only did customers notice; they
 THE FIRING SQUAD 5

left. Another great example I’ve seen recently is where a large shopping
mall operator decided to reduce layers of management and lay off its
operations managers, replacing them with regional managers. The idea
seemed great. The company saved tons of money on payroll. But people
that made this decision didn’t understand how this move would impact
operations. The old hands-on, financially savvy, community-oriented
operations managers knew customers, kept them happy, made sure
malls ran smoothly, and ensured occupancy was high and malls were
profitable. The new guys knew nothing about operations or finance,
didn’t know customers, were spread too thin managing several malls,
didn’t know their own staff or what was expected of them, didn’t under-
stand the overall mission, and didn’t know how to execute. Not only
did they miss the how, but they were demoted in their own minds when
they took new positions and had absolutely no desire to make anything
happen. Their staff saw the reduction in performance of their leaders
and followed suit. Cost savings went away. So did customer service.
One mall I studied increased its operating cost by over a million dollars
per year after reducing its payroll by $150,000.
Employee stress. Most companies don’t care about stress of outgoing
employees, but this stress can kill the very company that let them go.
Stressful employees are known to call the peers who stayed behind and
plant doubt into the organization. They can sue and spend countless
hours and dollars in unemployment and legal hearings. They spread the
word to their friends and the company’s brand slowly dies. Customers
stop buying. Potential employees don’t apply for future jobs. I’ve heard
one senior executive complain that she couldn’t find people to work for
her. Prospective employees heard so much negativity about the firm that
they’d rather stay unemployed than work for this organization.
Negative action. This can be expressed in a lot of ways. From sto-
len company property to objects flying in bosses’ faces, from broken
car windows to lawsuits, people react and this reaction can cause you
money and stress.
Remaining employees. This is the most obvious and most important
weakness in the organization. Yet most employers tend to ignore it. When
people get laid off, the remaining employees always ask the same questions:
“What happened? Why a lay off? Why them? Why not me? Is this the
end of it? Will there be more? When will I be laid off? What is the risk?”
6 LETTING PEOPLE GO

If no one can answer their questions, they start speculating. Speculation

turns into rumors, and the rumor mill has no limits. Whatever they decide,
the end result is always the same—it’s time to look for another job. Some
employees leave. Others start looking for opportunities. All of a sudden,
money becomes less of an object than it was when they first accepted the
job. They all look for stability. This search for a new job becomes their new
purpose in life. Their regular job no longer exists. Neither does produc-
tivity. This remaining workforce turns into a slow-moving, careless liabil-
ity. People who were once considered stars create the basis for not doing
their work: “It doesn’t matter anymore. I’ll get laid off soon anyway.” These
words will come from the same people you considered for promotion just
weeks earlier. But wait! They will go many steps further! First, they will let
their friends know to not accept a job with your firm. Why? Because they’ll
get laid off as soon as they join! Then your stars will become heavily stressed
and sometimes go into depression. They will use it as justification for poor
performance and they’ll strongly believe in the validity of their excuse. They
will call the employees that just left to exchange their stress. Although they
expect that they’ll feel better after such conversations, they usually become
stressed even more. Your customer service people will talk to customers
with a sigh instead of a smile. Your demotivated customer retention team
will work to lose customers. All of a sudden, people will start taking vaca-
tions and sick days (of course, they need to interview!), raising your fringe
benefit rate and reducing work coverage and productivity. The bottom line
is that work will no longer exist in your organization.
As you can see from the previous examples, termination of employees
can harm the organization in both the long term and the short term. If
companies have positive goals, they have to do whatever it takes to pre-
vent any harm to the organization. That’s why layoffs and firings should
be done correctly.

Horrors of the Firing Squad

I hate to compare letting people go with killing them. Of course these are
two different things! Luckily, firings don’t typically result in deaths. But
history shows many cases where lost jobs took people to extremes no one
ever thought possible.
Consider the following examples.
 THE FIRING SQUAD 7

Example 1

Some time ago, I interviewed a gentleman for a junior manager position.

He interviewed well. He possessed great functional knowledge and had
great leadership skills. He looked like a star. But there were two things
that surprised me. First, this highly paid individual was unemployed for
an extended period of time, which seemed unusual for his position, espe-
cially given the exceptionally great market conditions. Second, I noticed
that he lived in low-income housing, where payment in cash was required
for rent every month up front. This combination surprised me. I ran his
background check per company policy and found two issues. One, he
had a dishonorable discharge from the military. Two, he had a felony on
his record. Per state law, I disclosed the findings to him and heard the
horror story as a reply. This young man made a mistake when he was in
the army. It wasn’t a big deal; he probably would have kept his job if he
was in the private sector. But he was discharged, or, in the words of the
private sector, fired. This discharge went into his record and haunted him
for the rest of his life. He couldn’t get a job. This highly skilled individual
was left on the street while his wife was staying at home with a newborn
baby. He spent many months looking for another job until he found
one. A few months later he got laid off. By the time I met him, he was
unemployed for over a year. He went into a heavy depression. How could
he take care of his family if he couldn’t find a job? He moved into low-
income housing, but he couldn’t afford to pay for it. He told me he had
plenty of interviews, and he heard good feedback from potential employ-
ers, but the process would always stop when his potential employer heard
of his termination from the military.
Unfortunately I wasn’t in the position to hire him either. I felt bad for
him. This extremely capable individual ruined his whole life by getting
fired from the army. His story also explained the felony on his record. He
got caught stealing. But he didn’t do it because he was a bad person. He
was a desperate person trying to feed his family.
I have a friend who used to be a fatalities-processing clerk in the mili-
tary. He told me he used to process one suicide per week that either cur-
rent or ex-military personnel committed due to their financial problems.
8 LETTING PEOPLE GO

Example 2

I met a manager who was laid off from a major diversified technology-
services firm. This individual was highly competent. He was a successful
serial entrepreneur and worked as a senior executive for a variety of com-
panies. He wasn’t worried when he lost his job. It seemed like he could
find another one quickly. But things didn’t turn out the way he wished.
It took him almost three years to find another job. He went into a heavy
depression. His wife tried to commit suicide and then spent time in a
mental institution. When she came back, she filed for divorce and took
away his life’s savings. In turn, he stole money from his business partner
so he could survive. As in the previous case, this man justified his theft
because he needed the money to survive. He lost lots of friends as well as
his reputation, which he may never recover.

Example 3

I used to play in bands when I was younger. The rock ‘n’ roll scene
exposed me to the world of individuals who had low-paying jobs as a way
to survive while they played music with hopes of making it big someday.
I remember I met an excellent drummer. He was laid off from his job
after having spent 15 years there. The day he got laid off, he drove home
fast so he could see his wife and relax from the stress of unemployment in
the comfort of his home. He was pulled over by police for speeding, and
the officer suspended his license. He desperately tried to look for another
job, but he couldn’t even go to an interview—he could no longer drive.
One day he took the risk and drove to an interview. After all, he didn’t
have a choice. He had a family to feed. His wife was handicapped after a
car accident and couldn’t work, so she stayed home with their two kids.
As he drove to the interview, he got pulled over by police. He was arrested
for driving with a suspended driver’s license. The judge gave him 30 days
in prison and suspended his driver’s license for 3 years.
This individual felt like he was put in front of the firing squad.
 THE FIRING SQUAD 9

So What?

It seems like these three examples show the extremes of what happens.
But here’s what we should all think about: According to a survey con-
ducted by CareerBuilder, 47% of all Americans live paycheck to pay-
check.1 This means that 47% of the population doesn’t have any savings.
If that’s the case, then this means, of the 47% of the people who live pay-
check to paycheck, those who lose their jobs may have problems similar
to the ones we described in our extreme cases. Most of these cases will be
closer to example 2, but all three cases may occur. So maybe these cases
are not that extreme.
I am sure your first question is “So what? Just because they don’t know
how to save money doesn’t mean we shouldn’t let them go.” You are abso-
lutely right. If you need to let them go, then go for it. But you should make
sure to do it correctly. Look at the introduction to this chapter that talks
about the why. Then think about these extreme examples we just discussed.
What do you think people can do to your organization if put in this posi-
tion? What would you do if your organization put you on the street with
no savings? Now consider the fact that this happens to at least 47% of the
people! The other 53% of the people get impacted as well. They may sur-
vive for a little longer than the unlucky bunch that didn’t save money, but
they will face the same challenge if they don’t find a job soon.
Think about it this way. When you let them go, it won’t be about them
as much as it will be about your organization! Therefore, it is essential to
control the process. One way to control it is to help the people you let go.
There are many possibilities for helping these people. The following
chapters will give you lots of ideas on the types of things you can do.
Here’s a teaser example.
I have a great friend who is a division CEO of a multibillion-dollar
firm. He told me that his firm lost a large contract to a major competi-
tor. As a result, the company had to let 120 people go. But what his firm
did was extraordinary. Instead of letting staff go, the company called the
competitor that just took its contract away and asked if they could use
the people. One phone conversation between senior executives saved 80
out of 120 jobs. These 80 people got transferred to the new organization.
Then the company found jobs for 20 of the ones that were left in other
divisions of the firm and gave large severance checks to the 20 it had to let
10 LETTING PEOPLE GO

go. Employees were very thankful. Everyone understood the challenge.

Those who lost their jobs were well prepared by the firm in advance and
received enough cash to survive for a few months. The firm organized the
layoff so well that these people didn’t feel the impact of losing their jobs.
To them, it felt more like a logical transition to the next project. The lay-
off went pretty much unnoticed. Those who were displaced thought the
firm took care of them.

Employees Versus Contractors

Near the beginning of my consulting career, I worked for a global IT
consulting firm. This firm grew quickly. It had 5,000 employees when I
joined and over 6,000 employees only 6 months later. As a consultant, I
was expected to provide technical services on long-term contracts to For-
tune 1000 clients. Although I was clearly told who I was working for and
I knew exactly who gave me my paycheck, I never felt like I was a part
of this consulting organization. I switched clients three times during my
tenure with the consulting firm. But I always felt like I was a part of my
client’s team and I felt like my client was my employer!
Owners of consulting firms specializing in long-term projects don’t
usually see this. They believe in employee loyalty and think that their
staff embraces their culture. But this culture is virtual; there’s no culture
to embrace! It doesn’t matter if they are employees or contractors. They
are humans first! When humans enter an organization, they see, believe
in, and buy into the culture of their clients. They don’t see the culture of
companies providing their paychecks, but they go to lunch with their cli-
ents, participate in their meetings, go to their corporate events, abide by
their processes and procedures, and communicate with their staff. They
do things the way their clients want them done, not the way their con-
sulting firm dictates.
When I worked for this consulting firm, I was told that we were great
for being International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 90012
registered, having great career opportunities and top-notch people. But
as a consultant working at the client’s site, I had no idea what ISO 9001
meant, I had no idea how I could explore great career opportunities that
supposedly existed, and I’d never met any of the top-notch people work-
ing on other customers’ sites. I never knew who my boss was, but I did
 THE FIRING SQUAD 11

work for various managers at clients’ sites whom I always regarded as my

bosses. When my contract engagements were over, I was devastated. I
knew in my head that this simply meant the end of the contract period,
but in my heart I felt like I was either laid off or fired.
I’ve seen many similar situations.
My wife worked for a large property management firm. Her job was
to assist with the management of a large shopping mall belonging to her
client. She spent a year and a half working for the client. She never met
any representatives of her employer other than on her initial job inter-
view day. She didn’t know where they were located, nor did she care to
know. She felt like she was a part of her client’s team. When she left, she
gave her client a resignation letter, rather than giving it to her employer.
Why? She hardly knew who her employer was.
So what’s the moral here? If you are a client hiring a consulting firm,
you should treat consultants like your own employees! I am not talking
about legal aspects of employment.3 I am talking about leadership. As
human beings, consultants need to be motivated just like employees.
Most people think that this is nonsense. After all, that’s exactly why
they hire consultants. To them, consultants are vendors. They come and
go. You don’t have to pay them benefits. You don’t have to worry about
motivating them and dealing with their personal issues. You don’t have
to consider their feelings. You think they are disposable. You believe they
know they are on a contract that will eventually go away.
This is where true leadership comes in. True leaders manage human
resources, not employee or consultant resources. And humans have feel-
ings. They want stable jobs. They want to fit in a culture. They like to
communicate and feel valuable. But very few consulting companies care
to motivate them, and in most cases, these firms can’t create a culture
consultants can feel a part of simply because consultants never see it.
I’ve seen many cases where customers wrongfully thought their con-
sultants and vendors were motivated simply because the customer was
paying them money. But think about this—just because you buy a
burger at McDonald’s doesn’t mean the cashier is motivated to do his job
and cares enough to do it well. Think of your consultant as a cashier in
McDonald’s. Money has an equal impact on motivation on both of them.
Here’s an actual case that I witnessed recently.
12 LETTING PEOPLE GO

A company I was recently advising hired a consulting company to

provide it with a couple of senior level engineers. Both were very bright.
Both had similar backgrounds and comparable functional capabilities.
One was told he was there on a 1-year contract that would be extended
for another year if he performed well. The other one was told that his
function was that of support, and his contract would be over in 2 to 3
months. The first engineer stayed there for over a year and had an out-
standing level of performance. The second one did well for the first three
months. After that he asked his client if he was going to stay on the con-
tract for another few months. For a number of reasons, the client refused
to answer his question and continued his contract on a day-to-day basis.
Obviously unhappy, this consultant went to his consulting firm to see
if they could give him an answer, but they couldn’t give him any more
information, nor did they care to—all they wanted to do was bill the
client while they could. The consultant first became demotivated. After
all, he saw no purpose in performing any more work if his job was going
away. Then he slid into what looked like a heavy depression. “Perfor-
mance” became a nonexistent word in his vocabulary. He started coming
to work late and leaving early, thinking that it didn’t matter, since he
would be let go soon anyway.
When I brought up this issue with the client, I got a standard
response most customers give in such a situation. This client believed
that it wasn’t her job to motivate the engineer and any performance-
related issues were between the engineer and his employer. She further
thought that the engineer should be self-motivated because he received
a salary he wouldn’t receive otherwise if this client didn’t hire his firm.
But things only look simple! This consultant was simply a human being
who wanted to know that his job was stable and he was being valued! His
client never gave him any feedback regarding his performance nor did
she communicate about his future with the firm. There were no growth
opportunities and the short-term outlook didn’t look promising. When
this consultant became demotivated and his performance dropped, the
client simply let this consultant go, giving him a week notice. The client
thought she did the right thing—she removed a nonperforming resource
and gave his consulting company a whole week to find another engage-
ment for this consultant. What looked like a simple decision turned into
a mini disaster. This already aggravated engineer was upset that he was
 THE FIRING SQUAD 13

being fired and being given a 1-week notice after asking the customer
for many months to give him some kind of an indication about his sta-
tus with the firm. He went around and told the client’s employees, who
he now regarded as members of his team, about him being let go with
a short notice. Rumors started spreading. People started talking. Soon,
everyone decided that the company was starting a set of layoffs. Most
people weren’t aware that this team member was a consultant and were
disgusted with how their firm treated their fellow teammate. They started
looking for jobs. The motivation level went down. It took a lot of effort
to restore employee trust in the organization.
There are many other examples I can think of where contractor ter-
minations turned into infinite nightmares. Every time it happens, clients
make the same mistakes—they treat consultants like disposable goods.
They don’t treat them like human capital. Although the results are usu-
ally not as devastating as situations in which companies let their own
employees go, they can create a mess.
Real leaders don’t differentiate between contractors and employees
in anything other than legal issues. All people deserve the same level of
attention and require the same type of leadership techniques to make
them effective. Real leaders terminate both employees and contractors
the same exact way.

It’s About Leadership

By looking at some of the previous sections, you’ve probably guessed by
now that successful employee termination has a lot to do with leadership.
People follow strong leaders anywhere. Leadership can be power-
ful, but it can also be dangerous. Millions of Germans followed Hitler’s
directions and killed tens of millions of people. Joseph Stalin successfully
led the country after putting 20 million of his own people in prisons.
Religious sect leaders convinced their own followers to kill themselves
or dedicate their lives to the beliefs of one person. In contrast, against all
odds, Gandhi led India to freedom by using his peaceful disobedience
methodology.
Imagine how much good charismatic leaders like Stalin and Hitler
could have done if they had directed their abilities toward something pos-
itive! At the same time, Gandhi could have destroyed more people than
14 LETTING PEOPLE GO

Stalin and Hitler did due to his amazing leadership qualities and the size
of India’s population.
Letting people go can be implemented in either Hitler’s or Gandhi’s
way and it’s up to every leader to determine the strategy he or she will
follow. Most companies don’t associate themselves with either strategy,
but, surprisingly, most terminations look like Hitler’s deeds, even if such
approach wasn’t planned.
I’ve witnessed one firing of a middle manager in a Fortune 500 firm
who simply became a scapegoat of a multimillion-dollar disaster. As a
result of an integrity problem that occurred outside of this person’s con-
trol, this firm was about to lose a contract that was worth hundreds of
millions of dollars. In order to save the contract and keep this key cus-
tomer, his company announced that the problem occurred because of
this middle manager’s ignorance and terminated him immediately. This
manager was a hot commodity. He started getting calls from employers,
but no one wanted to hire him once they found out about his adventure
at the previous firm. One such firm ran a background check and con-
firmed that he was fired for an “integrity violation.” He eventually found
a job, but his reputation will take many more years to restore.
So what went wrong here? His firm knew that there was no violation
on his part. To them, it was about money. They didn’t think they acted
in a Hitler-like way. After all, their actions restored a multimillion dollar
contract, although it was done in a Machiavellian way. But they destroyed
this human being. Gandhi would probably have done this differently. He
would have thanked this employee for his continued contributions and
paid him a reasonable severance. He would then personally go out of his
way to help this individual find a job.
Federal government contractors in the United States represent another
great example. There are thousands of firms in this sector selling business-
processing outsourcing services. These companies bid on 2- or 3-year
contracts and hire people knowing that these folks will lose their jobs at
the contract’s end. I’ve witnessed people leave nice, stable jobs in order
to make a little bit more money working for a government contractor
only to find out later that their jobs are temporary. When you discuss this
dilemma with government contractors, most tell you the same thing—
they have to do it! It’s the nature of their business. These contractors don’t
think about their employees. Workers join the firm with happy faces and
 THE FIRING SQUAD 15

leave shortly thereafter with stress, hatred, feelings of being betrayed, and
tears in their eyes. Government contractors believe that this is the Gandhi
way. After all, they give people jobs. But contrary to their beliefs, this
looks more like the Hitler way. These people may not necessarily need the
jobs that will disappear soon, even if they make more money in the short
term. They don’t want the stress of looking for another job.
While such practices may seem cruel, they may be the necessary evil
in firms with business models that depend on quick hiring and firing of
staff. Fortunately, there are ways for these firms to reinvent themselves
and follow the Gandhi style of leadership.
Another interesting leadership challenge is the ability to execute
strategies at all levels. Gandhi and Stalin were able to execute their plans
because they surrounded themselves with great people who believed in
their missions and knew how to go about performing their tasks. In turn,
these people surrounded themselves with other great people who could
also execute their strategies. Leaders’ messages resonated well from the
very top to the very bottom, and everyone believed in them and wanted
to be a part of the success.
This ability to execute plans on all levels is key to successful termina-
tions. It’s not enough for the leader to convey the message to his staff. His
staff should be able to convey it down to every level. When a company
CEO announces a layoff, it doesn’t help if only top VPs understand the
reasons behind it. The reasons should be communicated down to people
on the very bottom of the pyramid. In order to communicate it properly,
firms must have leaders at all levels.
Leadership is definitely important. Chapters 2 and 3 of this book
focus on the most effective combination of leadership techniques required
to let employees go.

Psychology of a Fired Human Being

One of the most common mistakes employers make when terminating
employees is to assume that employees understand why they are being let
go. What’s worse is they sometimes assume that employees are OK with that.
I’ve been a part of a layoff that occurred due to a merger between
two firms. As a result of this merger, the firm was going to lay off sev-
eral hundred people. The unlucky bunch was gathered in a conference
16 LETTING PEOPLE GO

room, and they were told what happened and why they were being let
go. This explanation seemed pretty clear and made perfect business sense.
But immediately after the meeting, I heard the following statements from
employees being terminated:

“Why would the company terminate our jobs if they have

enough money to pay our salaries even if we have no real
work to do?”
“I don’t know about other people, but I know I am being let go
because I am black.”
“I am going to sue for wrongful termination. They have no right
to lay us off.”

The same happens with employee firing. Ask yourself a question. How
often do you see scenarios where people understand why they are being
fired and they agree with the decision? The challenge with most employ-
ers is that firings are usually one-way conversations. An employer would
speak and an employee would sit in a state of shock. Managers believe that
employees listen just because managers talk, but that’s rarely the case.
Of course, there are exceptions. As a matter of fact, we’ll discuss them
in the next two parts of the book. When followed, these rules will create
productive terminations with minimum blood spilled. But what happens
in most cases? The following list outlines the framework that represents
the person’s state of mind when being let go:

1. Opening remarks. The employer starts the conversation by giving

some background on the situation. While he speaks, the employee
runs through some thoughts in his or her head: “Where is my boss
going with this? Why am I being told this? Am I being fired? By the
way, what did I just hear?”
2. Pulling the trigger. The employer makes a statement that the
employee is being terminated. The employee is in the state of shock.
He or she can’t believe what happened and doesn’t know what to say.
3. State of denial. The employer describes the reasons for termination.
The employee disagrees. The employee believes he or she is being set
up or misunderstood, or the employee believes the employer is mis-
stating the facts.
 THE FIRING SQUAD 17

4. Fight back. The employee tries to argue with the employer and prove
him or her wrong. The employee believes the employer is either (a) delu-
sional and simply doesn’t know all the facts or (b) unfair. The employee
thinks the employer will most likely agree with the arguments presented
and will somehow let the employee keep his or her job.
5. Vengeance. The employee realizes that there’s nothing he or she can
do but wants to fight back. The employee’s first thoughts include
going to a lawyer and suing the employer for a large chunk of money,
talking to his or her boss’s superior, or coming up with some way to
hurt either the person who did the firing or the whole company. The
employee often thinks this was personal and believes it had nothing
to do with his or her performance.
6. Waves of frustration. The employee calms down. Sometimes he or she
talks to an attorney and to his or her friends, relatives, or coworkers
and tells everyone how he or she was mistreated. At some point the
employee realizes there’s nothing that can be done to get his or her
position back. The employee decides to get the situation over with.
He or she will need to process some termination paperwork like
benefits, return company keys and equipment, and get his or her
final check. The employee’s disapproval of the situation comes back.
He or she enters the second state of denial. Eventually the employee
calms down and forgets about it.

As you can see from this framework, there isn’t a second in time
when an employee tries to understand why he was let go. There’s also no
indication that the employee will be OK with this termination decision.
What you do see here is the tendency of both parties to argue. Although
most people won’t call this arguing, it is! In fact, both the employer and
the employee present their arguments, which they innocently like to
call facts. The employer believes he or she is right to fire the employee,
and the employee tries to argue either to convince the employer that he
or she is wrong or to file a lawsuit against the employer and prove his or
her purity in court.
Yes, this is essentially an argument. But who typically wins an argu-
ment like this? No one. Do you remember the last time you won one?
The best you can probably recollect is when you think you won the argu-
ment, but the other party thought he or she won as well.
18 LETTING PEOPLE GO

So if firing conversations are nothing but arguments that can never be

won, why would employers spend time and aggravate employees they are
about to terminate by telling them stories full of lies, flawed arguments,
and deception? Why would employers think they are following the Gan-
dhi approach, doing something good for a company, if they are really
hurting innocent employees and terminating their jobs, lives, and dreams
in a Hitler-like way?
Remember these things when you read the next part of the book and
when you fire employees. Most firings are nothing but arguments that
cannot be won. People have feelings. When you fire them, you are fight-
ing against feelings, not logic-based arguments.