In the modern workplace, few experiences are as stressful as being fired. It's a moment that can shatter your sense of security. While terminations are sometimes unavoidable due to business realities, the process through which they are conducted speaks volumes about an organization's values and integrity.
One of the most egregious offenses in firing etiquette is the use of fake meetings or deceptive tactics to terminate employees, like in the article. This practice is not only disrespectful but also unprofessional and ultimately detrimental to both the individual being let go and the company's reputation. Not only does this approach lack transparency and honesty, but it also demonstrates a blatant disregard for the individual's time and dignity. These actions can decrease trust and create uncertainty among remaining employees.
The prevalence of this problem speaks to larger issues within corporate culture. In many cases, the motivation behind these tactics is rooted in profit-driven decisions rather than genuine concern for employees' well-being. Executives may opt for outsourcing in cheaper countries to cut costs and boost profits. There are alternatives like reallocating resources rather than prioritizing executives’ financial gain. It highlights a lack of ethical leadership and I'm sure part of it is that it's easier to fire someone remotely rather than face-to-face where you have to see the aftermath.
Executives should be willing to lead by example, even if it means making personal sacrifices. Taking a pay cut or forgoing bonuses during challenging times could send a powerful message of solidarity to employees. Firing them remotely or during a "meeting" sends a powerful message too and it's not a good one.
You wrote: "There are alternatives like reallocating resources rather than prioritizing executives’ financial gain." This is a topic worth more discussion as it applies to law firms and corporations. When the wage gap between those at the top and those at the bottom of the corporate or law firm structure gets too large, culture and cohesiveness suffer.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was growing up, the gap between CEO's and line workers (I grew up in Detroit, so much of my perspective is based on the auto industry) was relatively small. Today it is huge.
In 1965, the ratio between CEO and worker pay was just 21 to 1. That seemed like more than enough incentive to encourage people to climb the corporate ladder and strive to lead an organization.
Today, that ratio has ballooned to 603 to 1. What could possibly justify that gap?
You are absolutely correct that executives should set the tone! All organizations should have policies and procedures in place to manage every aspect of firm culture. That being said, the tone from the top should be one that exudes professionalism and encompasses the mission and values of the corporation. In my opinion I do not think that a high paid executive would make a personal sacrifice their own financial gain for others.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, many executives really have no people skills when tasked with "firing" employees either. I think that doing so remotely is yet another way that people hide behind online platforms. Have they forgotten how to interact with people in person?
There's a bit of a running "joke" (if you can call it that) in State workplaces - no one gets fired, they're just encouraged to resign.
ReplyDeleteI'm in agreement about the tactics used though - there's a lack of candor and respect by distancing yourself as far as possible from the action. One could argue that remote terminations are "safer" for all parties, but that seems like something that would need to be on a case by case basis, not a blanket policy.]