We celebrate the wins: the perfect hire, the thriving team, the successful project. We even have playbooks for the challenges of recruitment. But what about the other side of the coin? The conversations we dread, the decisions that weigh heavily on our minds, and the actions that impact people’s lives directly?
Let’s be honest: hiring is tough, but firing is tougher. It goes against our very nature to deliver bad news, especially when it involves someone’s livelihood. The reality of today’s business landscape, however, is that sometimes, for a variety of reasons, companies must make the difficult decision to reduce their workforce.
The difficult decision: how to choose who to let go
When the mandate comes down to reduce the number of employees, the first question is always the hardest: who? It’s a decision that should never be taken lightly.
Common selection methodologies (and their pitfalls)
- Last-in, first-out (LIFO): this method involves terminating the most recently hired employees.
-
- Pros: it’s simple to implement and can be seen as objective, as it’s based on a single data point: the hiring date.
- Cons: it’s a deeply flawed strategy for the modern workplace. It fails to account for performance, skills, or potential. You risk losing innovative new hires who bring fresh perspectives and crucial modern skills, while retaining long-tenured employees whose skills may be less relevant to the company’s future direction. It can also inadvertently lead to age discrimination claims if your newer hires are predominantly younger.
- Performance-based selection: this method relies on performance review scores and metrics to identify the lowest-performing employees.
- Pros: it’s data-driven and directly rewards high achievers, which can be good for the morale of those who remain. It’s often easier to justify from a business perspective.
- Cons: past performance isn’t always a perfect predictor of future success, especially if the company is pivoting its strategy. A “low performer” in a role that is being phased out might have the perfect skills for a future, yet-to-be-created role. Furthermore, this method is only as reliable as your performance review process. If reviews are subjective or inconsistent, this method can perpetuate manager bias.
Here are a few things to keep in mind:
- Look beyond “last in, first out”: while seniority-based decisions are sometimes the easiest to justify, they aren’t always what’s best for the future of the company. A newer employee might possess critical skills for the company’s future direction.
- Performance is key, but not the whole story: performance reviews are a crucial piece of the puzzle, but they are a record of the past. It’s important to also look at an employee’s trajectory. Are they growing? Are they adaptable? Do they have a willingness to learn?
- The high-performing team dilemma: what if you have to make reductions in a team where everyone is a star player? This is where a forward-looking approach becomes essential. Instead of looking at who is the “weakest link,” shift your perspective to “who is most critical for our future success?” This requires a deep understanding of the company’s long-term goals.
Moving beyond gut feelings or simple formulas is essential for a process that is fair, defensible, and strategically sound for the company’s future. A structured and objective approach is your best defence against bias and your best tool for making sound decisions.
Key aspects for a fair and future-focused decision
When making these decisions, it’s crucial to have a clear and objective framework. Making these decisions is not just about cutting costs – it’s about shaping the future of your organization. It’s a strategic realignment of your most valuable asset: your people.
Skills, not just roles
Move from job descriptions to skills inventories: don’t just look at an employee’s job title (instead of thinking about eliminating a “Marketing Manager” role, think about the skills that role possesses. Do you have a surplus of certain skills and a deficit in others?). Create a skills inventory for your teams. You might discover you have a surplus of project managers but a critical shortage of data analysts with French language skills. This proactive “skills mapping” reveals who is truly essential for the road ahead. An employee in a seemingly junior role might possess a rare and valuable combination of technical acumen and language fluency that makes them indispensable for a future market expansion. A skills-based approach can help you retain the talent you’ll need for tomorrow.
Future potential and adaptability
Measure potential, not just past performance: potential is more than a feeling. An employee’s ability to learn and adapt is invaluable. Look for individuals who have shown a capacity for growth, who have taken on new challenges, and who are open to change. It can be assessed through observable behaviours. Look for things that indicate a high-potential employee:
- Learning agility: who actively seeks out training, learns new software on their own, or asks for challenging assignments?
- Problem-solving skills: who consistently brings solutions, not just problems? Who thinks critically and can adapt their approach?
- Collaboration: who works effectively across different departments and builds strong relationships?
Recognize language skills as a strategic asset
Language knowledge is not a soft skill – it’s a hard, quantifiable asset. Don’t underestimate its power when making retention decisions. An employee who can communicate with international clients, partners, or even colleagues in other offices brings immense value. When making difficult decisions, consider the language skills within your team. They might just be the key to unlocking future opportunities, even in challenging times.
- Market access: an employee who speaks fluent Spanish or Mandarin doesn’t just translate. They understand cultural nuances that can make or break a new market entry.
- Operational efficiency: in a multinational company, having team members who can communicate seamlessly with the head office in Frankfurt or in Paris, or the development team in Kraków eliminates friction, reduces misunderstandings, and accelerates projects.
- Competitive edge: a linguistically diverse team can better understand global customer needs, monitor international competitors, and identify opportunities that a monolingual team would completely miss. Objectively assessing these skills is vital.
You need to know who is conversationally fluent versus who can confidently negotiate a complex contract in a foreign language.
Consider the “ripple effect” of a departure
Beyond an individual’s direct output, consider their role in the team’s ecosystem. Are they a formal or informal mentor to junior employees? Are they the “go-to” person for a specific critical process? Losing this person – even if their performance metrics aren’t top-tier – can create a knowledge vacuum and disrupt team cohesion, leading to hidden costs in productivity and morale. A careful analysis of team dynamics is a crucial, though less quantifiable, piece of the puzzle.
Building a fair and forward-looking decision matrix
The most robust approach is a blended one, using a decision-making matrix to evaluate employees against a consistent set of criteria. This forces a comprehensive view of each individual’s contribution and potential.
Create your criteria: work with leadership to define and weigh the criteria that matter most for the company’s future. These may include:
- Performance metrics: historical performance data (e.g., last 2-3 review cycles).
- Skill set & capabilities: how critical are their skills to the team’s core function? Do they possess skills needed for the company’s 3-year plan? This is where you’d rate expertise in key software, methodologies, or language proficiency.
- Adaptability & potential: have they demonstrated a willingness to learn new things? Do they volunteer for challenging projects? Have they shown resilience in the face of change?
- Institutional knowledge: how difficult would it be to replace their understanding of company processes or clients?
- Role redundancy: to what extent do their job responsibilities overlap with other employees?
What happens when you must make cuts in a team where everyone is excellent?
Your matrix becomes even more critical. Here, the weighting shifts dramatically towards future-focused criteria. It’s no longer about finding a “weak link.” Instead, ask yourself questions like:
- If we are launching a new product in the DACH region (Germany, Austria, Switzerland) next year, who has the German language skills to support that?
- If our strategy is shifting towards AI-driven analytics, who has the foundational skills or demonstrated learning agility to lead that transition?
- As we consolidate our European operations, who has the cross-cultural communication skills to work effectively with teams from different countries?
In this scenario, an employee who is a solid performer but has a niche skill set for a declining business area may be ranked lower than another strong performer whose adaptable skills and language abilities align perfectly with the new strategic direction. It’s a tough calculation, but a necessary one.
Firing with dignity and respect
The way you handle the termination conversation will have a lasting impact on the departing employee, as well as on the morale of your remaining team. Here are some tips:
What to do:
- Be prepared: have all the necessary information and paperwork ready. This includes details about severance, benefits, and the return of company property.
- Be direct and clear: avoid sugarcoating the message. Be gentle, but direct.
- Be human: it’s okay to show empathy. Acknowledge that this is a difficult situation.
- Listen: give the employee a chance to react and ask questions.
- Focus on the future: if possible, offer support in the form of outplacement services or positive references.
What to avoid:
- Don’t make it a surprise: if performance has been an issue, the employee should have been made aware of it through previous conversations and performance reviews.
- Don’t rush the conversation: allow enough time for the conversation to unfold without being rushed.
- Don’t make it public: the conversation should always happen in a private and confidential setting.
- Don’t argue or defend: the decision has been made. The purpose of the conversation is to inform, not to debate.
Make your decisions with confidence and clarity
Making decisions about who to let go is one of the most challenging aspects of HR. It requires a delicate balance of business needs and human compassion. While there’s no magic formula, having objective data can make the process fairer and more strategic.
This is where Focus Audit Tool can help. Our comprehensive language audits provide a clear and unbiased assessment of your employees’ language skills. In a world where global communication is key, knowing the linguistic capabilities of your team can be a critical factor in making informed, future-focused decisions.
By understanding the language assets within your company, you can ensure that you are retaining the skills you need to thrive in the global marketplace.
Ready to make more strategic, data-driven HR decisions? Contact us today to learn more about our language audits.