Up in the Air

The fact that I am in the TV production business today is completely unrelated, but my wife and I have been movie lovers for decades. We almost always will see movies in the theater, and almost always during the earliest of days after release. One of this year’s “Oscar nominee movies” is ‘Up In The Air’. This film, starring George Clooney, is doing very well at the box office, as well it should because the acting is superb and the plot is fascinating. The director seems to be making a statement about “being alone” and the fact that even the most ardent “loners” ultimately become convinced that being “together” is better than being “alone”. Indeed, I could even stretch my creative side to envision that the character, Ryan Bingham(played by George Clooney), is actually an alter ego of Clooney himself. This character lives on airplanes, disconnected intentionally, and even spends part of his time giving “motivational speeches” where he tells people to disconnect from all the people in their lives and to live life alone. Looking at Clooney’s inability to establish any real “relationships”, he was probably quite at home with the part (Ouch! Dead on but risky. He might not buy my book after this remark).

All of that said, the major backdrop for this movie is the job that our lead character has. He is a professional “terminator”. No he has not come back to terminate the mother of John Connor, the leader of the resistance; but he is a modern-day, “terminator of staff”, in the modern world of corporate downsizing. Yes he makes his living acting as a surrogate for management that does not have the “courage” or strength to face those being fired, or as the players refer to the fact that, “their job is no longer there”.

I must admit, I myself have used outplacement specialists to help staff to redefine their future and to help them, conduct a job search. But I have never worked with a company “outsourcing the act of firing.” Now there are some company’s who have outsourced their HR departments through Professional Employer Organizations (PEOs), and in some cases they have been asked to help with the terminations, but candidly, I have never seen the actual act of firing accomplished by an outsourced person. On researching this topic, I have found that certain HR consultants have probably gone beyond the “facilitate” or “advise” function, and have actually done the “dirty deed.” In short, the bosses have outsourced the firing. Candidly, this whole concept is so repugnant to me, that I was distracted by the concept throughout my viewing of the movie. Clooney does a good job of being very dispassionate and yet sensitive to the “terminated” employees, but the bottom line is, he makes his living firing people.

Now, those of you who have read my writings, or those of you who will soon be reading my next book, Lead with Love, will know, that I believe firing is as essential a leadership responsibility as hiring. Indeed, leaders have a Lead with Love obligation to do the firing. By that, I mean that leaders must be personally responsible for the decision, and must love their associates so much that they would never have somebody else do the termination.

This is true if the reason is failure to perform or if the reason is simply a downsizing of the organization. We owe it to our staff to care enough about them, love them, and give of ourselves to them as we make the very difficult decision to disrupt their present and present them with an alternative future.

There is no doubt that I find the termination for failure much easier than the termination due to a reduction in force…a downsizing. Firstly, when I terminate for failure, at least I can look that person in the eyes and in sincere and supportive terms, tell them that they did not meet the expectations, and that the job they are in is the wrong job for them. I am being quite judgmental, but that is what I get paid to do, make judgments about performance.

If I have been doing my job effectively during the period of time prior to the termination; then I have been coaching and giving substantive feedback for some time, with no success. In short, I have arrived at a point where the failure to perform is now negatively impacting the organization and my fellow employees. It may be no fun to take the action, but at least I know that it is because that associate had been given every chance to succeed, and failed.

On the other hand, in the down size situation, it is more often than not, factors completely out of the control of the associate. Either the economic conditions or the business itself, have deteriorated and the leader finds it necessary to reduce staff in order to prevent business failure. Worse, many times downsizing happens when the company managed to allow itself to get “bloated” with more staff than actually required to achieve the goals of the organization. Whatever the circumstance, the associate is generally being terminated because of the failure of the enterprise, not their own personal failure. This is a tough situation, and it is clear that in these conversations, the individual can become distraught with fear and anger because it seems so personally unfair.

I for one have struggled with these situations many times since much of my career was based on “fixing” troubled entities. There were times when some of the staff cuts were due to the inadequacy of the staff, but most of the staff reductions I faced were not related to this. Most of the cuts occured because the business could not sustain the current staffing levels, or management was changing the processes to eliminate redundancy or inefficiency. These types of changes almost always require the elimination of jobs filled by perfectly capable people who were simply no longer required to operate the business. Those are very difficult conversations, and in many ways, I can fully understand why executives and managers would like to avoid them.

But, that is the very reason I believe they must be conducted by the leader, not conducted by some third party “terminator.” If I am the leader, then only I can effectively communicate the decision, and the pain of that decision. I have said many times, if you cannot love your associates, then you should not be a leader. But, I also believe that if you cannot love them enough to want to be the one who tells them that they are losing their job, then you should not be the leader. The pain you feel will translate into a conversation that is sensitive and caring; an experience that will help the associate weather the storm.

But, that is precisely why I suspect that these “terminator” assignments have evolved for NR consulting organizations. The average, non-loving boss, simply cannot cope with the pain and conflict associated with the termination. A carefully rehearsed “speech” by a well trained “terminator” probably is much more effective, than a half hearted, non loving, even cruel, boss who simply wants to get this over with, so he can go on with cleaning house. If you cannot love, then you will probably botch the job of giving the message. This is why I believe that any boss who finds it impossible to actually love his associates, needs to move on to another form of work.

Getting back to the movie, George Clooney’s character is a classic case of a person who has either no capacity to love, or who has sublimated that capacity with a hard hearted matter-of-fact personality. He can act out concern for the terminated employee, but not really feel it. His presentation of the facts and the options is so well rehearsed, that his act is effective. He has canned lines for everything and because he does it day in and day out, there are not many conditions he has not already encountered. In short, he does his “termination job” very efficiently, with minimum negative impact on the company. He is probably a more pragmatically effective solution, than having a “non-loving leader” with a heartless disregard for the humans who work for him, do the firing.

But that is the part that makes this movie so troublesome to me. The fact that there are firms actually doing this business today makes it clear that there are many firms out there that have bosses in place who they have deemed to be incapable of “doing the dirty deed” the right way for the benefits of the company. By having professionals who know what words to use, and what acting capabilities to deploy, that they will protect the company from more serious consequences. This adds one more process to the human interaction of the leader with the staff.

My hope is that more bosses will read my writings, and that they will learn that by being a Leader who Loves, we can fulfill our obligations to the organization, while at the same time fulfilling our human obligation to our associates. We are first and foremost, humans, and we have an obligation as humans to love our fellow citizens of the company. When we lead with love, we recognize that by loving our associates, we would never leave them to cope with this pain of termination alone. We will feel their pain, truly, and then we will work to let them know that we love them, and that we want to be there for them. There is nothing more precious than a human relationship predicated on this core value of love for our fellow human.

I want to leave every reader with the sense that this business of loving your associates is very hard work. You could easily simplify your life if you never became emotionally attached to your associates. That is how Clooney’s character gets by. He never gets close to anybody, especially the people who he will fire. His public speaking message about staying disconnected from people is a reflection of how he copes with being the ”terminator.” Because he can do that, the people he “hurts” about their job elimination, do not become his burden. They are simply another day, and another firing. But, the hard work matters, because you, and only you, can truly communicate that sense of love – caring – that will help your associate to cope. You owe that human commitment to your employee and the organization, even if it can be painful for you.