Dismissal Without Excuses: Shifting Employee Offboarding from Emotions to Data

In management practice, a common scenario occurs where an employee is let go with the simple phrase "we no longer require your services," without any detailed explanation. At first glance, this might seem harsh; however, behind this silence lie specific legal risks, psychological traps, and systemic management failures. Let us examine the nature of this phenomenon and how a professional leader should structure the dismissal process.

Legal Safety

The first reason for the lack of explanation is purely pragmatic and is most evident in countries with robust labor laws (such as the United States). From a risk-mitigation perspective, it is much safer to terminate an employee on the principle of "Thank you, it was great working with you, goodbye," than to engage in detailed justifications.

The moment a manager begins to argue for the decision—citing, for example, low productivity or a toxic attitude toward colleagues—they open Pandora’s box. Any specific grievance becomes the foundation for protracted discussions, counter-accusations, and potential lawsuits, which is critical for the business. In this case, silence serves as a legal defense tool. Despite the controversy surrounding this approach, it follows a clear logic.

The Cumulative Effect: When Emotions Overpower Analysis

The second and more common reason lies in the incompetence of the manager. Often, the decision to fire someone is not made instantly. It matures over time; dissatisfaction builds up due to unfulfilled tasks, minor failures, and the employee’s improper attitude toward their work.

The manager wavers for a long time about whether to say goodbye to the person, and while they are in this state of indecision, the critical mass of errors grows. When the "boiling point" is reached, the manager is no longer capable of an emotionless, analytical dialogue. To avoid venting accumulated negativity onto the employee, they choose the simplest path: to shut down and end the relationship without discussion.

The leader's mistake here is obvious. Instead of addressing the problem the moment a "small deviation" or disciplinary breach occurs, they hoard grievances, turning the workflow into an emotional time bomb.

Lack of Metrics: The Conflict of Perception vs. Facts

The third and deepest reason is the absence of solid performance indicators within the company. In most organizations, managers lack a system of metrics for each subordinate. Consequently, the manager relies not on data, but on their own perceptions and general observations.

The problem is that it is impossible to find common ground with an employee based solely on perceptions. Everyone has their own truth. Where a manager sees inefficiency, an employee might see a unique approach. Without hard data, any conversation about dismissal turns into a clash of subjective opinions and emotions.

How to Conduct a Professional Dismissal

To avoid "silent" dismissals and the associated negativity, I recommend following three systemic steps:

Implement clear metrics. When an employee’s results are quantified, the conversation becomes straightforward: "Peter, here is your metric, and here is the result we require. You are not meeting it, and this poses a risk to the company. You will likely find better fulfillment elsewhere, so we will be looking for another candidate for this position." This is not a personal grievance, but a statement of fact. Conduct regular synchronizations. Problems should be solved as they arise. Constant feedback eliminates the "accumulated anger" effect. Use an analytical approach. If a company has a system of measurements and regular discussions, both parties are usually in agreement regarding the situation by the time of dismissal.

How Netflix fires people

Netflix is one of the most famous examples of a company that has consciously built an emotionless dismissal process with extremely clear criteria. The company uses a rule known internally as the Keeper Test. A manager regularly asks themselves one question about each employee: "If this person said they were leaving tomorrow, would I fight to keep them or let them go peacefully?" If the answer is "let them go," a conversation begins—one that is logical rather than sudden and emotional. 

In other words, they do not spend months trying to "rehabilitate" an underperforming employee. If a person stops meeting the required performance level, they are parted with quickly and correctly. There are no long excuses or accumulated irritation, but it is also not a cold "we no longer need you" format. The employee understands what contribution is expected and how that contribution is assessed. Therefore, the moment of parting is not a shock; it follows logically from previous discussions. 

Professional management transforms dismissal from an emotional crisis into a calm process where both parties understand the reasons and can move forward without mutual resentment. In the masterclass "How to Strengthen the Team, Solidify the Business Foundation, and Reach a New Level," I discuss the systemic steps mentioned above in more detail, helping you learn how to build a business where every decision is reasoned and the team works as a single mechanism. Sign up via the link: https://go.bbooster.online/smyf