Ending the Employee Relationship Essay
There are many situations in which managers do not want to deal with. If you were to give managers a survey on which situation they dread most, many would probably say the termination of an employee. It’s been long disputed proper ways to approach this situation, but no matter what research indicates and suggests, the situation is usually uncomfortable for both parties. In The Winding Road from Employee to Complainant: Situational and Psychological Determinants of Wrongful-Termination Claims, the authors were trying to determine factors that contributed to employees filling wrongful-termination lawsuits.
They reviewed the literature relevant to wrongful-termination lawsuits and constructed twelve hypotheses of why they believed these types of lawsuits occur. However, their main argument suggests that the attitudes of the former employee are based upon how fair they believed their former employer was during their employment and throughout the termination process. Similarly, Katherine Karl and Barry Hancock, the authors of Expert Advice on Employment Termination Practices: How Expert is it? found that employee vengeances is also based on the fairness of their supervisors and the manner in which the terminations were handled.
They argue that vengeful attitudes and behaviors are a result of the wounded pride and humiliation that occurs when such actions are conducted in an abusive and insensitive manner. Both these articles suggest the employees that feel they were treated unfair and were humiliated, file lawsuits against their former employer. Evidence Lind et al. 2000 used to support their argument included: former employees who feel badly treated finds that he or she can use litigation as a mechanism for instituting a new, negative relationship with their former employer, the greater the hardship associated with the loss of a job, the greater the impact of fairness judgments will be on the employer, and the people that are more educated and have more resources are more likely to seek a lawsuit. Karl and Hancock 1999 illustrated what the “experts” say.
They suggested the immediate supervisor and a Human Resource employee should be the ones that deliver the news, it should occur on a Monday or Tuesday, and it should occur in a neutral meeting room like a conference room. When discussing reliability of the evidence these authors presented, the first problem that comes to mind is both articles are over ten years old. In research, the rule of thumb is ten years or older, should be taken with a grain of salt. However, this does not completely discredit the validity of the research. In my opinion, the article written by Lind et al. 2000, is reliable. I researched two of the sources they used and the specific articles they pulled from were published in a peer-reviewed journal. Along with this, the supporting evidence in which they presented seemed logical and was almost intuitive. Similarly, Karl and Hancock 1999 also used studies out of a peer-reviewed journal. However, with this being said, their evidence they presented to support their argument was not as convincing. They pulled from what the “experts” say; however, they never expanded on who the “experts” were and where they pulled their evidence.
If they would have expanded to where the evidence came from and what studies were done to get those conclusions, it would have been presented to be much more reliable. In my opinion, both the articles were persuasive. Their evidence, even though it may not have been reliable, was consistent with the argument. Both sets of authors presented the material in a way that flowed and allowed the reader to connect their arguments and findings to real life examples. While I was reading the articles, there were numerous times I thought to myself, that makes sense and I could see where both the employer and employee are coming from.
I believe this is important because it allows me to connect it to real life examples, which in turn makes it practical. After reading and analyzing these two articles, I agree and disagree with many of the factors they determined. First and foremost, I believe managers that have to terminate employees must do so by being fair and sensitive at all times. Even though you probably will never speak or see that employee again, it is your moral and ethical obligation to be sensitive and understanding, no matter what the situation.
I agree with the authors that if the manager treats the employee with respect, the odds of them filing a lawsuit against you or the company is lower. The second aspect I agree with is the fact that union workers probably file more lawsuits because they have access to lawyers. Along with this, I believe unions are much more likely to file lawsuits because it shows their members they are committed to them. In Lind et al. , 2000, they suggest that employers should give notice of the termination and they should help the employee find a new job.
This was in order for them to try and decrease the likelihood of the employee to file a lawsuit against them. I do not agree that employers should notify them of the termination prior to the effective date and I do not agree that they have to help them find a new job. Obviously the employer is terminating the contract because of poor performance, an internal issue, or the employee made a mistake. Because of this, I believe it is up to the employee to take the consequences and find a new job on their own.
This might seem harsh, but ultimately its business and sometimes that’s how it has to be. These articles are very relevant to me and my classmates because the odds of us having to terminate a future employee at some point in our career are very high. These articles have opened my eyes up on what I should and should not do while terminating an employee. They have taught me how to avoid being sued and how to be sensitive to an employee’s feeling. I believe at some point in my career, I will be able to think back to this research and accomplish the hard task of terminating an employee.