Firing Someone Decently: Before, During, and After the Conversation
How to end someone's employment honestly and with dignity, using documented thinking from Patty McCord, Kim Scott, and Patrick Lencioni. General guidance only, not legal advice.
Nobody practices this one. You rehearse the opening sentence in the shower, you reread the notes, and you still end up with a stomach full of dread and a half-formed hope that the person will resign first.
This guide is general management thinking from published authors. It is not legal advice, and employment rules differ sharply between countries and states. In the US, employment is often at will, while the UK has statutory notice, unfair-dismissal rights, and redundancy rules. Speak to an employment lawyer or HR first.
What does "decently" mean when someone is losing their job?
It does not mean painless. The person will be hurt, and trying to avoid that usually produces vagueness that makes it worse. Decency here is narrower: no surprise, no humiliation, no lies, and a plain account of what happens next.
Generic advice skips to the script. Ask an assistant for "a termination meeting script" and you will get tidy sentences with no view on whether the meeting should be happening at all. The decision and the delivery are separate problems, and the documented approaches below deal with each.
Before: has the person actually been told?
Lencioni's The Five Dysfunctions of a Team (2002) sets out a pyramid in which lack of trust leads to fear of conflict, lack of commitment, avoidance of accountability, and inattention to results. The fourth layer is where many firings are born: nobody held the standard, so the gap widened quietly.
Applied: Before you plan an exit, ask whether the person has heard, clearly and repeatedly, what must change and by when. If the honest answer is "I hinted," then the next step is a direct conversation with support and a timeline, not a termination. If you have done that and nothing moved, the decision may be sound.
"I am considering ending [person]'s employment because of [issue]. List the conversations, written feedback, and support they have received, with dates. Then identify where my own communication may have been unclear, and what I would still need to have said before this decision is fair to them. Do not tell me what to decide."
Why it works: separating what you said from what you meant exposes the gap that most "surprise" terminations contain.
In the room: what do you say?
Kim Scott's Radical Candor (2017) is built on caring personally while challenging directly. In a termination the decision is not up for debate, but the care still applies: dignity, privacy, and directness. She argues that a person should not leave the room unclear about what happened.
Applied: Say the decision in the first minute, plainly: "We've decided to end your employment." Give the date, the practical next steps, and who will help. Keep the reason short and consistent with what they have already heard. Then listen. Avoid softening phrases that hint at a reprieve, such as "we may need to revisit" when you will not.
Patty McCord's Powerful (2017), drawing on her years in talent at Netflix, describes the keeper test: for each person, would you fight to keep them? If not, she argues, offering a generous severance package lets both sides part cleanly. Whether you can do that depends on your resources and the law.
"I need to end [person]'s employment on [date]. Draft a 60-second opening statement that says the decision in the first sentence, gives the reason in plain language consistent with earlier feedback, and states the practical next steps. Then list three reactions I might face and a calm one-sentence response to each, without reopening the decision."
Why it works: a short, direct opening stops you from burying the news under preamble.
After: what do the person and the team hear?
McCord argues for telling the team honestly and promptly what they need to know instead of leaving a vacuum. Silence invites speculation, and speculation is crueler than facts.
Applied: Within the same day, tell the team the person is no longer with the company, when it takes effect, and who covers their work. Do not discuss performance details. Check with HR what you can say.
"A team member, [name], has left the company effective [date]. Draft a short message to the remaining team that states the fact, explains how their work will be covered, and invites questions to me privately. It should not speculate about reasons or discuss performance. Also suggest two things I should do in the next week to rebuild a sense of stability."
Why it works: a factual, short message denies rumor its oxygen and shows the team how departures will be handled.
How do the three approaches compare?
| Approach | From | When it fits | Watch out for |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accountability before exit | Patrick Lencioni, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team | You suspect the person was never told clearly what had to change | Delaying a clear decision under the label of "one more chance" |
| Care and directness in the room | Kim Scott, Radical Candor | The decision is made and the delivery needs to be clear and humane | Softening to the point the message is lost |
| Keeper test and severance | Patty McCord, Powerful | A role mismatch where a clean, respectful exit is possible | Treating generosity as a replacement for honesty, or ignoring legal requirements |
What can't a framework do?
It cannot tell you whether the decision is right, only whether the process around it is honest. It cannot replace legal and HR input, which exist to protect both you and the person. And it will not make the conversation comfortable. If you are unsure whether you can perform the conversation, practice it aloud with someone you trust.
Patty McCord, Kim Scott, and Patrick Lencioni sit in the People & Culture category. For the originals, see Powerful by McCord, Radical Candor by Scott, and The Five Dysfunctions of a Team by Lencioni. For structuring the feedback conversation you have been postponing, Difficult Feedback is a $49 tool built for that.
All the copy-paste prompts from this guide, and the rest of the Situations series, live at /prompts too, free to copy without reading the guide first.
Frequently asked questions
Is this guide legal advice?
No. It describes management thinking from published authors, not what the law requires you to do. Employment rules differ widely by country, state, company size, and the person's tenure and circumstances. Before any termination, speak to an employment lawyer or HR professional who knows your jurisdiction, and follow your company's process. Follow the process your company and local law require, document what is needed, and have HR present if that is standard practice where you work.
How do I know it is time rather than just a rough patch?
Patrick Lencioni's Five Dysfunctions of a Team places avoidance of accountability near the top of the pyramid. A useful test is whether the person has been told clearly, more than once, what must change and by when, and has had real support. If the answer is no, the first job is a clear conversation, not an ending. If you are not sure what is permitted, ask before the meeting, because a well-meant explanation can create problems you did not intend.
Should I tell the person why, or keep it brief?
Kim Scott's Radical Candor argues for clarity delivered with care. The reason should not be a surprise, because earlier conversations should have covered it. In the meeting itself, state the decision plainly and briefly. A long rationale invites a debate you have already had. Check with HR or counsel about what to say. Practice the opening sentence aloud so the decision comes first, then keep the rest of the meeting short and practical.
What does a generous severance have to do with decency?
Patty McCord's Powerful describes Netflix practice: if someone's performance was adequate but not what the role needed, a generous severance package lets both sides move on without bitterness. Whether you can offer one depends on your resources and legal context. The principle is that dignity has a practical cost, and paying it is a choice. McCord's framing is not a rule about what to pay. It is a reminder that how you part is remembered by the person and by everyone watching.
How should I tell the rest of the team?
Promptly, factually, and without commentary on the person's performance. McCord describes telling remaining colleagues what they need to know honestly rather than leaving a vacuum for rumor. Confirm with HR what can be said, because the person's privacy and your legal exposure both limit the details. If you will not be able to cover their work immediately, say how it will be handled, because uncertainty about workload is part of what unsettles a team.
Can an AI help me prepare for this?
It can help you structure your thinking, draft an opening statement, and rehearse likely reactions. It cannot know your legal obligations, read the person in front of you, or take responsibility for the decision. Treat it as a rehearsal partner, not an advisor on process. Rehearsing aloud with a colleague or coach is often more valuable than a script, because the hardest part is hearing yourself say it.
Written by Gareth Hoyle. Last updated 8 October 2026. Part of the authority.md guides library.
More guides.
Apologizing to a Customer When You Got It Wrong
How to write an apology a customer believes, using the Trust Triangle from Frances Frei and Anne Morriss, the Trust Equation from Maister, Green and Galford, and Robert Cialdini's commitment principle used ethically.
Asking for a Raise Without Turning It Into a Standoff
How to run a pay conversation as a problem you and your manager solve together, using three documented negotiation approaches from Fisher and Ury, Chris Voss, and Deepak Malhotra.
Running a Post-Mortem Without Blame That Still Changes Something
How to run a review after a failure that finds real causes without scapegoating anyone or letting accountability disappear, using Amy Edmondson, W. Edwards Deming, and Gene Kranz.