Firing

In a culture in which one’s identity is usually defined by what one does, being fired is always a traumatic experience. If I no longer am a chemist, then who am I? If I no longer work for DuPont, then what am I? Losing one’s job, for whatever reason, carries with it the stigma of failure. It is considered one of the major causes of stress that we humans can experience. Invariably the typical emotions connected with grief are experienced—shock, denial, loneliness, depression and, finally, anger.

Unjust and Just Reasons for Firing

The firings that are generally most easily understood by all parties are instances in which an employee knowingly violates the law or an organization’s written policy. Immediate dismissal without due process usually follows theft of the employer’s property, physical violence against another employee, arson, the willful destruction of equipment and the operation of dangerous machinery while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. In most cases where an employee willfully violates those rules established as cause for dismissal, the employee has no one to blame but himself or herself.

Other violations of written company policy may be less obvious, and due process should be granted. Habitual tardiness may be cause for dismissal. But is some consideration given for a public transportation system that is unreliable? The harassment of another employee, be it sexual, racial or based on age or some form of disability, is generally considered cause for dismissal. But in cases where harassment is not clearly defined, there must be due process, and the employee should be put on notice regarding any repetition of the wrongful act.

The matter of blame becomes more cloudy when one is fired for poor performance. It has been said that almost every firing due to poor performance represents a failure of management. This is certainly true for employees who truly want to do well, and most of us do. Did management fail at the point of hiring? Was the job description accurate? Were the performance standards reasonable? Was there a failure in the interviewing and selection process? Was the employee adequately trained? Were there any impediments to the employee’s performance (poor equipment, distractions by others, too hot, too noisy, etc.)? Was good performance rewarded negatively? That is, is the best or fastest employee given the most assignments or asked to complete the work of a slower employee? Was there a periodic performance evaluation that was done honestly and professionally? Was the employee given realistic, measurable and attainable work goals on which to be evaluated? Was coaching provided to correct areas of substandard performance? Was there a system of warnings that alerted the next level of management of performance problems? Failures of any of the above are really failures of management.

In too many organizations supervisors and managers themselves are either poorly trained or incompetent. Time and time again managers and supervisors do not give employees honest evaluations of their completed work. Under such circumstances it should not be surprising that employees are shocked and angry when they are fired. They may not recognize the problem of poor management, but they do sense that something is unfair.

The Sacred Responsibility of Managers

Anyone who manages or supervises another has a sacred responsibility to his or her employees. When one considers the devastating effect firing has on most people, it should be apparent that the position of management carries with it a heavy responsibility. Top management should insist that all levels of supervisors be well trained and highly competent. If one is a manager who works for an organization where a high commitment to management excellence does not exist, each manager has the responsibility to educate oneself in the techniques of quality supervision. Just as we would expect a physician to have the highest professional commitment to the welfare of the patient, so also should we expect the supervisor/manager to have the highest professional commitment to the welfare of the worker.

Every employee is entitled to a periodic one-to-one sit-down evaluation of his or her performance by the immediate supervisor. Absolute honesty is crucial. Some Christians in management feel that they should be kind and forgiving in instances of unsatisfactory performance. They will, therefore, overrate the employee and avoid discussing unpleasant or difficult issues. Such a philosophy cheats an employee out of the help he or she is due and, in the long run, will hurt the employee’s career. Christian managers need to be as perceptive, fair and honest as possible. If an employee is not suited for the job, the sooner he or she learns about it, the sooner a job change can be made. It is unconscionable that some employers continue with poor performers for years and then, when the employees turn fifty, tell them they were unsuited for the work in the first place and must be let go.

A caring manager will give a poor performer an honest appraisal of the future of his or her career and then help the employee to find another position where the potential for success is greater. This process may take as long as a year or so, but it is the most caring way of firing someone. But before concluding that a marginal performer cannot improve, the supervisor/manager should provide personal coaching and additional training. The human-resource professional should be called in to help, and every effort should be made to help the employee succeed. If personal problems at home are involved, there should be a search for supportive resources, and if possible flexible working hours should be arranged. For those who argue that such special attention to marginal performers will cost the company money, there are two things to be said: the cost of hiring and training a replacement (with unknown future performance) costs money also, and an employee whose career has been saved and enhanced by management concern frequently turns out to be a highly productive and loyal employee.

“Innocent” Firings

While the preceding comments relate to employees who may have been fired for willfully disobeying the law or company rules or who have failed to perform up to standards, there are hundreds of thousands of people who have been fired through absolutely no fault of their own. These are the victims of corporate takeovers or of downsizing (or its more sanitized term rightsizing). For instance, company A merges with or purchases company B. There is a duplication of some departments (accounting, human resources, etc.), so entire departments in one company are abolished. In another case a company or organization may be losing money. In order to save the company from bankruptcy, and the probable loss of all jobs, it downsizes in one or more ways. Management might close one part of the organization that is a financial drag on the others, thereby leaving all employees in that entire unit without work. The company might discontinue certain functions previously carried out by employees (for example, food services, payroll or advertising) and contract out for these services, thus saving the costs of health care, pensions and other benefits. The organization might consolidate functions or locations, thus reducing the number of employees needed, and retain younger employees (at lower employment costs).

While being fired for poor performance should not come as a surprise, losing one’s job due to corporate takeovers or downsizing can be unexpected and quite sudden. The general practice seems to be that employees are given virtually no advance notice: “Pack up your belongings and leave—now!” The fear is that if employees are given advance notice, they may destroy company equipment, steal company secrets or take other vindictive steps. The effect of all this on the employees who are fired is devastating. Why me? is the first question. It matters not that an employee has been a top-rated, extremely loyal and conscientious worker with a perfect attendance record. If the unit is abolished, the employee is out on the street. And, to top it off, there was no advance notice—even though top management had to know of the action weeks in advance. The final indignity sometimes is the appearance of hired security guards to prevent vengeance. Employees feel utterly betrayed.

Some businesses feel it is more compassionate to take the route of announcing publicly that in the next twelve months or so they will reduce the work force by a specified number. The effect of this procedure is that people wait for the ax to fall. The entire organization is on edge as rumors fly. The dismissals begin. Morale is terrible. Families are consumed by fear. Substance abuse and family violence are not uncommon.

The one redeeming belief in all this is that the downsizing is being done in order to make the organization profitable again and, thus, to save jobs. But what do we say about the profitable company that downsizes with the assertion that these steps are being taken to keep the company profitable? And what do we say about the profitable company that downsizes in order to reduce costs, improve profits and, thus, give its stock a good boost in price? Can workers take some solace in the knowledge that they were fired due to no fault of their own? Not usually. Once again we are back to the identity issue—no job, no identity, regardless of the reason. And whether or not you were responsible, society stigmatizes the unemployed. The unemployed are failures.

The Effect of Firings

The effect of mass firings is not felt exclusively by those who have lost their jobs. While companies reduce the number of workers, they seldom reduce the amount of work. Those who survive the firings are frequently burdened with more work. The pressures to perform are enormous. The employer has already demonstrated a propensity to reduce the work force. Who would risk being seen as uncooperative in such an environment? The byproduct of mass firings frequently is a fifty- to sixty-hour work week for those who have escaped. The impact on family life and personal health is great.

Some companies overshoot the mark in their mass firings. It becomes apparent in time that the survivors cannot handle all the work. So are some of the recently laid-off workers called back? Seldom. Instead temporary workers are secured from an agency. The “temps” are never on the corporate payroll and, therefore, do not get a pension, health care and other benefits. There have been instances in which a temp was secured to do the exact work he or she once did as an employee. The move toward firing more employees and securing temporary workers is growing. It is estimated that by the year 2000 three out of every seven workers will be temps.

Another impact mass firings often have on the survivors is the sense of guilt. They were spared but their friends were fired. Psychologists say it is not unlike the feelings experienced by survivors of a fatal airplane crash or other catastrophe. It is called survivor sickness. Overwork, insecurity and sometimes guilt—these are the legacies of mass firings for those who have escaped the ax.

There is yet another group of workers hurt by downsizing: those who do the firing. As indicated earlier, some managers are reluctant to consider firing employees who are not performing well, for it is a painful task. How much more painful it is to fire good, loyal, competent workers whom top management has declared “redundant.” Many might be close personal friends. How painful it must be to be told to reduce a department by an arbitrary 20 percent. Which ones go? On what basis do managers decide? How is it all explained to these fine people? For managers who have worked to develop an atmosphere of growth, expansion, hiring and training, the reduction of the work force runs counter to all their instincts. Increasingly, managers are electing to take a walk from their company rather than continue to be a part of a downsizing with which they disagree.

The Church’s Response

Firing has become a commonplace event in America, but the shock, anger and pain do not lessen. As long as work and identity are so closely linked, the loss of work will continue to attack people’s sense of identity and self-worth. Some Christian churches have helped their unemployed members by providing support, paying for career counseling, establishing support groups and offering job-search programs. Typically, the job-search programs involve weekly meetings in which the unemployed gather to receive help from professionals in writing résumés, developing networks and having employment interviews.

There is one vital area in which the churches could do a better job: the Christian faith proclaims that a person’s work does not define his or her worth in the eyes of God. The grace of God extends to all who live in a relationship with God. If the Christian church could somehow convince all believers that the loss of a job does not diminish one’s worth in the eyes of God, perhaps firing could be less traumatic to all those involved. The question is, are the churches even trying?

» See also: Accountability, Workplace

» See also: Integrity

» See also: Loyalty, Workplace

» See also: Management

» See also: Work

—William E. Diehl