Separation

Of course, not everyone is equally successful. Some become the “rock stars”, the coveted talent the organization wants to retain as much as others want to recruit. Probably the largest proportion of hires perform well enough, providing a cohort of solid employees that add value to the company but could be replaced if circumstances required as much. A smaller group ultimately perform at levels so inadequate the organization feels duty bound to remove them from employment.

This latter group represent those who are most likely to experience involuntary turnover. In this case the adjective (“involuntary”) refers to the employee’s perspective. The removal occurs against the employee’s wishes. In some cases involuntary turnover is the result of a reduction in force. Reductions may occur for economic reasons (e.g., a downturn in the economy), or be forced upon a company by virtue of competitive pressures. In either case outsourcing and/or offshoring might replace the local workforce to produce the same or similar product or service.

In other cases the employer might decide that an employee should be removed “for cause”. Removal for cause can occur because of someone’s poor work performance, or a variety of inappropriate behaviors that violate one or more work rules. In these situations the text provides a set of concepts used to judge the manner in which an employer creates the separation. The removal process is evaluated with respect to:

• Outcome Fairness[1]
• Procedural Justice
• Interactional Justice

The justice associated with these concepts will be the focus of  the discussion that is one of the assignments for this lesson.