The Pink Slip

Many executive – level employees are caught by surprise when it happens to them. “I didn’t see it coming” is a common reaction. In retrospect, you may realize that there were certain telltale signs that you either were unaware of at the time, or you were aware of but wished to ignore. We can rationalize most things. “I’m just getting paranoid.” “My boss meant nothing by that remark.” You are probably wrong. The boss did mean something – you were just not alert enough to grasp that meaning or were wilfully blind to its implications.

If your perceptions had been more acute and accurate, and if you had acted on your early observations, would you have adjusted your behavior, attitude, or response so that your job remained secure? Employees are not necessarily equipped with extrasensory antennae that pick up changes in the political atmosphere at work. High achievers and good workers are not naturally politically wise. Nor has their training included a course on “political strategies to ensure survival at the office.” Being a good workers is often not good enough when your boss is replaced, your mentor moves on, or the company reorganizes. When those changes occur, you can be perceived by your superiors as being too inflexible, too independent or too costly. This is quite apart from discrimination regarding age, gender, race religious beliefs, sexual orientation or disability – all of which have legal consequences. You may have simply fallen out of political favor and you are either totally unaware of it, or even if you recognize you are facing political problems you just don’t know what to do about it…until it is too late.

Political problems at work come in a wide variety of deadly variations. Keeping your job may depend on early detection of your particular problem and developing a strategic reaction or counteroffensive. Your most serious issue is that it is happening to you – you are both the subject and object of the problem. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to develop a plan to deal with the political fallout. You are neither object nor dispassionate. You are more poorly equipped than most people to observe and understand the process. To do so, you must have great powers of detachment.

You are naturally angry and frightened – change is disconcerting and scary. You must initiate appropriate changes in your behaviour before inevitable decisions are made for you. But how do you back away from your own situation to assess how best to react to make your future more secure? It’s easy to advise someone else in these circumstances. But it’s impossible to advise oneself carefully and cautiously, especially when you realize that it is you who is being targeted for removal, replacement or early retirement.

Secure, productive employees do not quickly adjust to unanticipated changed circumstances. Denial is a common response. “I am I am misreading the signals. There are no signals. I’ve become oversensitive. My work is good” are all non-responsive, but normal reactions in these circumstances. Since most people just don’t know what to do about it, they deny that any serious problem exists. Before you attempt to solve such workplace problems, put yourself in a position to accurately identify the issues. If not, you could find that you are building a wonderful solution to someone else’s problem.

What follows are a number of brief scenarios that offer sign posts to help you identify the problem that you likely are facing or are about to face. Hopefully, the stories you have read, combined with the examples that follow, will open the door for you to explore appropriate options and available solutions that you might not otherwise have considered. But first you must recognize the signs.

1- No News Is Bad News
Suddenly you are not copied on memos you normally receive or invited to meetings you usually attend. You are out of the communications loop. Operations are initiated without your participation. You find out about steps taken after events have transpired. Naturally you feel insecure, unwanted and excluded. No one provides you with a reason for your exclusion. It just happens.

In, “Martini Lunch,” Ruth, a committed, loyal employee, found that after her new boss Joanna Fortnum took over, Ruth was not copied on e-mails she would normally receive, her participation in meetings was limited and at those she did attend, her input was not respected. Ruth could not cope with the deterioration of a job she loved. She had sacrificed much of her life outside of work because of her intense involvement in her job. For that reason alone, she was devastated by her exclusion and spent her time attempting to rationalize the situation, even ignoring the obvious signs and their implications. If not for the intervention of her former boss and mentor, she may have collapsed under the pressure and submitted her resignation, a cost-efficient way for her employer to reduce staff. Ruth knew she was being eased out, but either could not or would not address the situation. She did not have the skills to cope with what was for her the loss of her life as she knew it.

The communications gap is often the first telltale sign of trouble on the horizon. If you sense something is not right, you are usually correct. You feel wounded, but you are ill-advised to allow the wound to fester. If you wish to keep your job, you must become proactive.

Keep careful notes. Take a foolscap page of paper and draw a line from the top to bottom. On the left side, accurately describe the e-mails you would normally receive before the change in pattern. Set out the number of e-mails received per day, per week and per month, as well as the name and position of the individual who sent the e-mails, their subject matter, the date and the time sent. On the right hand side of the page, set out the date and time and subject matter of all the communications received once the change was first noticed. Do the same thing with the meetings formerly attended, time, date and subject matter on the left side. On the right side, those meetings attended, once the change took place.

This page should tell a dramatic story and make explicit to you and others that you are suffering exclusion. With this important documentation you are in a position to address your concerns to the appropriate party. This is no longer “a figment of your imagination,” which is a common management response. Deterioration in communication is a serious issue that must be addressed seriously. Your supervisor may not have fully recognized the consequences of her actions. Or, on the other hand, realizing the extent and nature of your documentation, she may realize that this tactic will not succeed, and if there is a problem, it must be addressed directly and resolved.

If your concerns, supported by the evidence, elicit little more than a denial, it is time to obtain legal advice from an experienced employment lawyer. For it is unlikely your job can be salvaged and it is best to work on an effective and financially rewarding exit strategy.

2 – Merger Maneuvers
You’ve heard that the company is going through a restructuring that will affect your position, yet your superior has said nothing about it.

Relying on rumors increases anxiety and blood pressure, but provides little useful information upon which one can take action. It is not unusual, during internal restructuring or merger discussions, that hard information is difficult to find. Meetings are confidential until final action is determined. The select few involved are most discreet about revealing the nature of the discussions in order to maintain freedom of action. If too many know too soon, management may face a reaction that limits their options.

If it appears that fundamental change is inevitable, then the only real question is what impact organizational change will have on you and your future. Under these circumstances preventive planning is essential. Inevitably mergers and restructurings result in job loss. It can become a desperate game of musical chairs to determine who stays and who is forced to leave.

There is protection available to those astute enough to take action. The protections available increase with the perceived value of the employee requesting them. If an employer fears the potential departure of a key employee because of that person’s concern about the consequences of a merger or a restructuring on her position with the employer, that same employer is motivated to allay the employee’s fears by taking concrete steps that provide some reassurance.

The chance that a key employee will jump ship and go elsewhere in anticipation of a negative change or even job loss is something a concerned employer wishes to avoid. Most employers wish to maintain continuity of employment, particularly during corporate change that could lead to employment and even leadership disruption. This presents an ideal opportunity for the executive employee to make a deal. Rather than contemplate losing a key employee at a critical time of corporate readjustment, the employer is motivated to guarantee a severance package to the employee or to those employees needed by the organization during transition. In exchange, the employee will guarantee her continued employment – at least over the term of the anticipated disruption.

For example, a small company of 50 employees is being merged with a competitor over a six-month transition period. Although job loss will result from the merger, it has not been determined the number of employees who will cut and the number who will stay. It is clear that certain key employees will be needed in any event to see the transition through to a successful completion. Those individuals required over the transition period are usually the most mobile that is those who could probably find a job elsewhere with the least difficulty. In order to guarantee that a number of the key employees remain in place until the merger is complete, the company enters into a “continuity agreement” with eight key executive employees that guarantees them severance amounting to between 12 and 24 months’ compensation if these same employees agree that they will not leave the company until the merger is complete, some seven months later. If, after the seven months have expired, and their employment is terminated, or they resign for specified reasons, the severance page is theirs. If, however, they leave the employer prior to the expiry of the seven-month term, they are entitled to nothing, apart from payment of salary up until the date of their departure.

Normally, if they leave either before or during the merger, they are not entitled to any compensation. The key employees, as part of their agreement to stay on for at least seven months, are guaranteed on their termination or resignation within a reasonable timeframe, a fixed sum of severance based on their age, years of service and level of responsibility. In this way the employees are protected and so is their employer over the time it takes to complete the merger.

3 – The Siberia Treatment
You are “promoted” to a position with substantially less responsibility and with no one reporting directly to you.

Such a “promotion” may be in breach of your employment contract, whether it is written or verbal and may trigger your severance entitlement. Of course, you agreement must set out your duties and responsibilities with some detail and clarity for this to be the case. For example, if 20 sales representatives are reporting to you and now there are none, and, in addition, if you were reporting to the vice president and now to the sales manager who reports the vice president, you may have suffered a demotion that amounts to a breach of your employment agreement.

Once again, your employer may be attempting to make you so uncomfortable that you will resign in frustration, thereby saving him a costly severance package.

If the employer is reorganizing a number of job positions, including your own, and the move does not impact negatively on your compensation or your status within the organization, it may be justified as a necessary corporate adjustment. In any case, the consequences to you of the change must be pointed out to your supervisor, in writing. You don’t wish to appear to have condoned your employer’s unilateral decision to limit your responsibilities or reporting relationships. You must place your concern or objection on the record. It may be that the negative change is just the first step in a series of moves, all of which must be documented by way of memo or e-mail setting out your former level of responsibilities, reporting relationships and status in the company and the negative consequences to you of this employer initiated change.

Assurance by the employer the change is temporary should also be documented for future reference, if that turns out not to be the case. Research the motivation for the change in order to determine whether it is part of an overall corporate strategy or an individual initiative imposed on you personally and not on others.

4 – The Paper Trail
You suddenly begin to receive e-mails from your boss telling you that you are not doing your job.

Once your superior begins to document you failings, you know he is building a case for the early termination of your of your employment, probably for justifiable cause and without any severance payment. It will require more than one e-mail to make the case that your performance is substandard and that you had been provided with adequate warnings to pull up your socks…or else. You ignore this paper trail at your peril.

If inappropriate conduct is itemized in the communication or if you accused of failing to fulfill your job responsibilities, it is important that you respond in detail to the accusations, detailed, businesslike and focused on the specific complaints. If you do not respond or delay your response, there is an assumption that the alleged failures are, in fact, true. It is important to respond to each allegation so that there is no admission of guilt by failure to respond.

Never attack your employer’s motives by letter or e-mail. Nor is it necessary to recite a long litany of your past achievements in order to justify your current behavior. Telling your employer what a good job you have done for the company over the years is not an adequate response, particularly if your employer’s current concerns are legitimate.

If you responses are focused and convincing, you will have avoided possible termination for justifiable cause without compensation. If each and every complaint is met with a reasonable explanation, then termination for cause is unlikely. An emp0loyer who is determined to end the employment relationship will be forced to offer a fair severance package. If the emp0loyer attempts to terminate your employment for cause and without compensation where there is an inadequate paper trail, he will ultimately pay substantial court-ordered damages for his ill-advised conduct.

5 – The Silent Treatment
Your boss has avoided eye contact with you for weeks. Friendly exchanges between the two of you no longer take place. Whenever you are around, his door remains closed.

This is the silent treatment and it probably means your days at the office are numbered. You request meetings and find he is seldom available to meet with you, although you notice others are able to gain access. It is probably not your deodorant that needs changing, but you may wish to examine your attitude, and you past pas exchanges with your boss in order to attempt to discover when and why the relationship fell off the tracks.

An unexamined relationship is often the source of dysfunction. Small events live large when office politics are involved. Something said or left unsaid may have communicated criticism or lack of support for your superior or for your corporate employer’s actions. An examination of past events and your own comments may reveal a misunderstanding that is the root of the “political” problem you are now facing. Early appreciation of the issue leads to early resolution. If the problem remains unexamined, there is little hope that a solution will be found.

A direct approach, in this case, is the best approach. Request a private meeting. Become proactive by addressing the obvious deterioration in the relationship by taking responsibility for the problem. It may merely amount to a perceived lack of respect based on your words, action or inaction. Reassure your box that you continue to respect her and her leadership. If true, be explicit, that you are committed to her vision and to the process she has outlined to achieve it.

It is not recommended that you act falsely, but rather that you take responsibility for your own actions without pointing fingers at others. Your forthright behavior is addressing the issue, without excuses, should result in an improved relationship. If not, then the situation is more serious than you contemplated and it may be beyond repair. You will satisfy yourself, however, that you did take the appropriate steps to deal with the problem.

6 – Tightening The Noose
You receive memos from your superior confirming meetings and conversations, a process to which you were not previously subjected.

Why is it that your employer is requesting confirmation of your actions, attendances and level of productivity in writing on a regular basis? What has triggered this need for written confirmation when none was required before? Why is there now a need to monitor your freedom of action when no such supervision was previously required?

You employer is engaged in building a case that you are an underperformer to justify the initiation of steps aimed by remedying the situation by way of warning letters or other more draconian measures.

Once again, the best approach is to address your employer’s concerns directly. Arrange a meeting to discuss the perceived need for reporting to your superior on a regular basis in a manner inconsistent with your level of responsibility, length of service and past practice.

Employees who are under pressure from demanding employers tend to react emotionally, often engaging in a confrontational behavior, rather than addressing the issues that have precipitated the reporting requirement. Emp0loyee resistance, particularly if adversarial, confirms employer perceptions that were responsible for the imposition of the limitations in the first place. Better to address these concerns in a low-key manner in order to ascertain their basis than to react negatively to these new restrictions. Some compromise may be negotiated, thereby re-establishing your willingness to work towards a solution and at the same time reducing your employer’s concern that you are on a frolic of your own that justifies monitoring your behavior much more closely.

7 – Special Projects
Your boss tells you that you will be handling “Special assignments” and will no longer be carrying out your normal responsibilities. At the same time you are informed that your office will be moved on a “temporary” basis to the annex where you will begin sharing a secretary with two others.

The implication of such a move is usually clear. You have become peripheral to the central focus of your organization. You are perceived as being disruptive to the work group. You are being warned that you behavior must change or you will be permanently sidelined. The move may mean your employer is engaged in a process to make you so uncomfortable that you resign, saving him, the trouble and cost of firing you.

You options are to respectfully attempt to carry out the project in the hope that your cooperation and diligence impresses your employer. Approach your superior in order to clarify exactly what is expected of you and over what period of time. If there is, in reality, no job to be done, but the “project” is a make-work project designed to sideline and frustrate you, it is best to address the situation immediately. Schedule a meeting in order to determine, if possible, your superior’s motives and to explore alternatives to “project assignment.”

An aggressive or confrontational approach is not useful. Nor is a finger-pointing exercise. “Am I being set up to be fired?” “Are you looking for a cheap resignation?” are not questions that should be asked. Rather, “How can I make my participation in the department more productive?” is a question likely to elicit a positive response. Cooperation rather than confrontation is a strategy that is likely to succeed.

Keep in mind that your employer can fire you at any time without the need to provide you with a reason for doing so, as long as it lives up to the contractual or other legal obligations with regard to notice and severance. The only time a rationale for the firing is needed is when you are fired for justifiable cause without notice or severance. It is only then that there is an onus that falls on the employer to justify its actions. The fact that you are assigned a special “project” foes not give you any legal leverage unless your employer has breached your employment agreement by its actions. Only an experienced lawyer is able to make that determination.

8 – Dollar Signs
Your employer tells you time are tough, so you won’t be receiving your normal bonus and your salary will be frozen. You learn that others have not been given this news.

You have been singled out for some reason. It is likely your employer delivering a non-verbal message to you that your productivity, conduct, attitude or all the above needs improvement. It is the equivalent of a warning letter that begins a chain of letters aimed either at progressive discipline or to justify termination of your employment for cause. If the reduction of compensation is combined with a reduction of responsibilities and a fundamental negative change in your duties and reporting relationships, the employer could be in breach of your employment agreement, depending on the specific terms of that contract and local news.

Once again, the main goal of the concerned employee is to get to the bottom of the problem. Clearly, the change in compensation is not motivated by economic reasons, otherwise the reduction would be imposed on others as well. It may be a new and antagonistic superior is put in place, who believes that your productivity does not justify your compensation. In any case, the rationale for the decision should be explored quietly by yourself and the superior who has made the decision.

In these circumstances, the intervention of a mentor or friend is often helpful. If this individual enjoys a positive relationship with you supervisor, then he is able to make inquiries to determine the reason for singling you out. A third party’s inquiry is usually helpful because you are not dealing with a matter of discipline or even a verbal warning – it is rather a matter of fact, possibly even a miscalculation with regard to your compensation entitlement. It should be approached on that basis, whether by yourself or by a well-placed friend within the organization.

Do not contact your superior’s boss in order to have her take corrective action. You will be made more vulnerable by taking that route. Your actions can easily be interpreted as an attempt to engage in an “end-run” around your superior, an action that is viewed as a negative tactic that demonstrates a lack of respect for the organization’s hierarchy. You must address your superior’s concerns directly with her or engage a friend to do so. In this way, no one’s authority is challenged.

9 – The Takeover Trap
The company is being sold. You receive a letter that on the completion of the sale all employment will be terminated, but it is expected the purchaser will rehire.

A major hotel operation was sold to a large hotel chain. The purchaser informed the hotel staff that their employment would come to an end when the sale was complete, but that most of them would be hired back on the same or similar terms by the purchaser. Individuals did not know whether they or their associates would be rehired. Older employees, like the executive chef and the hotel manager, each of whom spent 24 years at the hotel, did not know whether they would be included among the rehires. Even those lucky enough to be rehired did not know whether, in their new employment, their past service would be acknowledged for the purpose of severance or pension.

In theory, the executive chef might be rehired and within six months fired without payment appropriate to his 24 years of service, but rather for a small payment of two weeks’ severance or notice reflecting only his six-months’ employment with the purchaser. All employees were informed that if they wanted a job with the purchaser, they would be starting anew and could not rely on their years of service with their former employer for any purpose.

It was as a result of the intervention of an employment lawyer hired by the hotel staff that the terms of the purchase and sale were renegotiated. The seller hotel agreed that those employees not rehired would receive severance based on their years of service and level responsibility. For example, bellhops and busboys of under three years’ service received three months’ salary as severance. Those with four to eight years’ service receive six-months’ compensation. Those above eight years and less than 12 years received 10 months’ salary. Those with over 12 years service received 12 months’ compensation and their benefits for the 12-month period or until they were re-employed elsewhere.

Those hotel employees fortunate enough to be offered continued employment would be entitled to have their future calculation of notice or severance on termination based upon their cumulative service from both their prior and present employer. As part of the deal, the new purchaser agreed to pay the legal fees incurred by the seller’s employees.

It is unfair and contrary to public policy to force long-term employees to change employers and by doing so lose their accumulated service and benefits. Either their employment must be terminated and their rights addressed at the time of purchase and sale or part of the new hire arrangements must include the crediting of past service for the purpose of the new hire.

Tales of employers who attempt this maneuver abound as do stories of employers who loot pension funds accumulated by senior employees. Such tactics, although not unusual, are frowned upon by the courts. Remedies do exist. Sometimes proceedings must be commenced or at least credibly threatened before a large organization, bent on cutting costs, will realize that attacking employees’ accumulated service and savings is just an inappropriate way to reduce expenditures. Such a tactic may not only cost the purchaser more in the long run, but the attempt to shortchange employees will inevitably destroy their morale and often result in negative publicity if the impact of this strategy is picked up by the media.

Most employers attempt to handle these situations fairly. But there are the few who will attempt to cut a deal without considering the impact on the employees. However, the long-term consequences of such inequitable treatment is inevitably more costly than corporate purchasers’ realize.

10 – Receiving The News
You are called to your superior’s office for a meeting. Your boss appears uncomfortable. A representative of the human resources department is present and is taking notes.

The news is delivered quickly. “Good luck and goodbye. You are to pack up and leave today. Contained in this envelope is our proposal which we believe is very fair.” You are in no condition to respond. Even if not totally unexpected, the delivery of the news catches you by surprise. You are devastated. “Why is this happening to me? What do I tell my family? How do I pay bills, mortgage? Will I lose my house? My spouse? What do I say to the children?”

Before you what has happened, you are being escorted out of the office and the building and are told to get back to them once you have had an opportunity to review the proposal. It’s clearly over.

It happened to Joanna, Ruth’s boss, in the chapter, “Martini Lunch.” She could not bring herself to go home to tell her husband and family what had just transpired. Once the shock started to wear off, she became bitterly angry. “This was politics, pure politics.” She was doing her job, but was outmaneuvered and pushed out without the benefit of a proper parachute.

“I’ll sue the bastards! They can’t get away with this!” This is a normal reaction to the pain of job loss.

Once you have received the news, it is most important that you review the proposal carefully with an experienced advisor. It is virtually impossible for you to view your own situation objectively and dispassionately. You need very good advice in order to achieve the best financial bridge to new employment available to you. The employer’s first offer may be inadequate, but an experienced negotiator will improve upon it.

What is required is a careful consideration of the proposal on the table and taking the opportunity available to engage in fruitful negotiations. Most employers wish to put the matter behind them and are reasonably motivated to conclude negotiations with a deal that avoids protracted disputes and possible litigation.

Early resolution depends on flexibility of the employer and the fairness of the demands made by the employee. An experienced employer will advise you that reasonable expectations lead to early settlement. Unrealistic expectations, however, lead to litigation which is a costly and unpredictable process. In the chapter, “Remote Control,” Mark Donkin entered into hard-fought litigation with his corporate employer on the basis that he never resigned his position with the company. The judge hearing the case was unsympathetic to Mark’s position and favored the evidence of his superior, Jack Ross. Mark expected a big win and was shocked to find that not only had he lost the lawsuit, but the he was forced to pay the corporation’s substantial legal costs.
Quick settlements depend upon the perceived leverage of the terminated employee a well-connected executive employee will be treated more carefully than the employee who has no friends at the company who are willing to speak up on his behalf. The litigious employee who hires an attack lawyer, hoping to cow his former employer into making a generous proposal, is mistaken. It is more likely if in-house corporate counsel respect the lawyer representing the employee that terms will be agreed upon based on a mutual acknowledgment of legal expertise and experience.

The benefits of an early settlement include a sense of financial security and an acknowledgement that you are now moving forward to new opportunities. Looking back on the termination, employees acknowledge that departing from their former employer, even if it was done involuntarily was, with hindsight, the best thing that ever happened to them. It forced them to take decisions and to create new opportunities that they would never have undertaken if not pushed out of the nest. It is amazing that new opportunities appear to be so much better than the old one. Change, even if involuntary, can be liberating. It gives one time to move on to something better, often something more fulfilling. If you have the capacity to change, the opportunity to do so can make all difference in your career.

back