Firing with Class

BY MICK POPE, CLP

If the board you are part of begins to drift into a process that you would not be comfortable putting on the front page of the local newspaper, do not become a party to it.

Few matches between changing boards and the CEO of an agency are made in heaven, and separation can be inevitable. Terminating the CEO of an agency is a difficult, oftentimes emotional issue. However, the process and procedures can make an important difference.

This article points out helpful hints that board members may find beneficial in avoiding a termination. If, however, termination is the action taken, these steps will help avoid inappropriate procedures for doing so. In effect, they'll help you "fire with class."

Step #1: Evaluation

The evaluation process, or performance plan, is often one of the worst personnel procedures that a board administers. The difficulty arises when the board does not invest the time at the beginning of an evaluation period to set forth the items to be evaluated. It is imperative that the board and CEO discuss and agree, at the beginning of the evaluation period, on the performance measurement areas as well as the method of monitoring. Too often this process is left to the moment the evaluation is due. This is not only unfair to both parties but leads to a process that is haphazard at best.

Regardless of the format used, it is important to set forth the performance measurement areas and identify the specific items that are of greater and lesser importance. If this is accomplished at the outset of the evaluation period, both parties should be able to objectively discuss the level and quality of effort A mid-year review is also recommended to coach the CEO on performance measurement areas as well as items that need attention.

Most evaluations take the form of trait analysis including "personality, initiative, and attitude." A result-oriented performance plan takes effort and forethought, but is a much truer measure of management and productivity. A well-designed, result-oriented performance plan allows the board to pinpoint areas of responsibility that are highly important to the mission and goals of the agency. Furthermore, as the mission and goals are adjusted each year, so should the CEO's areas of responsibility and performance measurements.

Step #2: Put It in Writing

All evaluations should be in writing and should reflect the consensus opinion as opposed to the most dominant board personality. Fairness is the objective. Avoid the common pitfall of determining twelve months of performance on the basis of the last few months or one significant situation. Once the evaluation is completed and all board members have had a chance to review the written report, it is time to meet with the CEO.

Step #3: Feedback and Counseling

The written evaluation should be given to the CEO prior to in-depth discussion. After the CEO has reviewed the evaluation, a thorough discussion between the board and CEO should occur. The purpose of the review is to provide constructive feedback and counseling. It is best to identify as many specific situations as possible to bring clarity to the discussion. Unclear and ambiguous evaluation comments can send mixed signals and often end in confusion.

Counseling, or coaching, is the second aspect of the process and points out not only the strengths and weaknesses but how various aspects can be improved. The counseling aspect of the evaluation is extremely important. It allows both parties to discuss the details of expectation as well as the reasons. This is also the appropriate time to set forth the coming year's objectives and discuss expected results.

March/April 1997 / 21

FEATURE ARTICLE

There are exceptions to progressive discipline if the actions of the CEO are so egregious the alternative of immediate termination is appropriate.

Step #4: Progressive Discipline

On occasion it is necessary to express a desire for a significantly higher level of performance. Lack of understanding, a lax attitude or even job burnout could be the factors leading to a poor performance. If this is the case, feedback and counseling need to be directed toward raising productivity. If the past performance has been so poor, or is a continuation of poor performance, it may be necessary to give the CEO notice that not only is the board unhappy, but they feel strongly enough to issue disciplinary sanctions. The agency's policy manual should set forth a progressive disciplinary procedure that moves from a reprimand or notice to improve level, to the ultimate level of dismissal.

Step #5: Termination

If all the proper procedures of counseling and coaching the CEO have not produced satisfactory results, it is probably in the best interest of both parties to consider termination. When termination is agreed upon a period of time should be set for a "cooling off period" to allow die final decision to be made without undue haste. Before meeting with the CEO to issue the termination notice, the board should agree upon die proper separation details.

Termination with Class

It is appropriate to consider termination if the CEO is clearly not responding to a series of evaluation or coaching sessions and die CEO has previously been put on notice that termination may be necessary. Yes, it is appropriate to tell die CEO that termination is a possible alternative. Discussions about die possibility of termination should be broached with die employee during the series of coaching sessions so that the employee is clearly put on notice, in writing, that improvement in specific areas of performance must occur or the possibility of dismissal could result. The decision to terminate should be the last resort and should be thoroughly discussed by the board.

It is unfair for a board to decide that termination is in order if they have not made good faith efforts to communicate their specific items of dissatisfaction to die employee. The policies of die agency should also require that reprimands be put in writing with both parties signing die notice. Personnel literature is full of case law that advises die employer to document the employee's personnel file with written progressive discipline information.

If die board has made good faith attempts to communicate die issues that need improvement, and have followed die progressive discipline procedures, it may ultimately be decided that termination is in order.

There are exceptions to progressive discipline if die actions of the CEO are so egregious die alternative of immediate termination is appropriate. Again, if the policies of the agency allow for immediate termination, this decision may be the most appropriate course of action. If die policies are silent about such situations, it is always prudent to consult a qualified expert in employment law before die final decision is made.

Resignation vs. Termination

Once die decision is made to terminate the CEO, and if a serious offense has not occurred that warrants immediate dismissal, the board should provide die employee with die opportunity to resign. The process of dismissing an employee is a traumatic occurrence for both parties. Public employees are subject to a great deal more publicity than a private sector employee. The media is always looking for grist that helps sell their product and will more than likely make an issue of the dismissal. Therefore, it is appropriate for die board to offer to let the employee resign to allow the employee to leave with as much dignity as possible. The board should be prepared to identify what it will say to future reference checks when die employee seeks a position with other employers.

If die employee refuses to resign, it is then appropriate for die board to move to terminate. Be sure of your reasons and follow appropriate written procedures because any personnel dismissal issue can lead to litigation.

Termination with Compensation

Once the decision to terminate is made, the board should turn its attention to a reasonable separation package. Most agency policies do not set forth guidelines for separation conditions, thus it will be necessary to formulate a package that is commensurate with the employee's longevity and accomplishments. The employee has continuing needs for items such as health insurance, salary, out placement service and retirement.

Termination without Class

If a CEO is not measuring up to the requirements of the position and it is dear that continuing efforts to remediate are of little value, a board has an obligation to opt for a change in leadership. The line of distinction between what is "appropriate" and "inappropriate" regarding termination should be drawn with fairness, compassion and positive motivation as opposed to callous rejection. Following are three scenarios that represent inappropriate termination processes that a board should avoid.

"You Have Until Noon to Clean Out Your Office" This process is often used as a means of terminating a CEO in a way that the employer can abrogate its responsibilities and wield its ultimate power. The decision to terminate is made and the next step is to deliberate a severance package and meet with the CEO. Rather than use die longitudinal, progressive discipline approach with attempts to identify the issues of concern, the inappropriate decision is made to handle the

22 / Illinois Parks and Recreation

FIRING WITH CLASS

firing in an abrupt manner.

The CEO is called to a meeting and told that things have not been going well, thus his or her services are no longer needed. The employer indicates that the decision to terminate has been made and then lays out options: resignation will be allowed if the CEO accepts the following separation package or immediate termination without compensation. Not only is the ultimatum delivered with little or no warning, but an answer is demanded within little time and all personal affects "must be removed from the office and keys turned in by noon."

"Your Services Are No Longer Needed and We Do Not Intend to Honor the Remainder of Your Contract."

Employment contracts between the CEO and agency are becoming commonplace in the public park and recreation field. The concept of a contract is simple. It stipulates the obligations that the employer and CEO agree to work under. The wording, however, can be terribly complex. In this scenario, the CEO is told that a change is needed and the board has decided upon termination. A severance package is set forth but it does not correspond to the contract that has several more months until expiration. When the conditions of the contract are mentioned by the CEO, the board chooses to abrogate its responsibility and offer to let the employee resign or be fired.

"Three Strikes and You Are Out"

It is concluded that the CEO should be replaced, and the decision is made to hire a legal specialist in employment law to advise the board how to fire with the minimal amount of financial exposure to the agency. The board also decides not to engage discussion about their concerns and does not employ the concept of progressive discipline.

Instead, it acts on advice from counsel and formulates "strike one," a mid-year evaluation that is 180 degrees from the evaluation six months earlier. The mid-year evaluation carries with it a set of projects or tasks that are due with short time periods and are not only difficult to accomplish but prone to subjective criticism. To "build a case" for dismissal, the review sessions for each of the projects or tasks are designed to identify the ineffectiveness of the CEO. In essence, the CEO cannot meet the board's expectations, therefore "strike two" has occurred.

The "third strike" comes after the board decides that not only has the CEO performed poorly, but attempts to meet the projects or tasks that accompanied the evaluation have proven that the CEO is not capable of adequately performing. Thus, there is no alternative than to move to terminate.

Whether a board finds itself in one of above scenarios or another, they should be willing to meet with the CEO and be straightforward with their point of view. The board must also realize an obligation to the CEO and be prepared to negotiate a fair and equitable separation arrangement.

This, like many other decisions, is a business proposition that should be dealt with fairly and in the interest of both parties. In short, it should be made into a win-win proposition for both parties. Putting an individual through a humiliating ordeal is uncalled for and lacks the integrity and ethics upon which relationships should be founded.

Can the above three termination scenarios be justified? Do they really happen and are these processes something with which you would like to become involved? In the opinion of people with a sense of fairness and ethics, they cannot be justified. If the board you are part of begins to drift into a process that you would not be comfortable putting on the front page of the local newspaper, do not become a party to it.

It is perfectly appropriate to terminate the CEO for cause, but do it with dignity, class and honesty. Who knows, someday you may be in the position of the employee. How would you prefer to be treated? 

Mick Pope, CLP
is a consultant with Management teaming Laboratories, Ltd., In Champaign, Ill., specializing in a variety of leisure agency management topics. He is a former president or the Illinois Park and Recreation Association and the Notional Recreation and Park Association. He has served as CEO lor the Homewood-Flassmoor and Elmhurst park districts.

March/April 1997 / 23