The president wants us to start listing voluntary and involuntary terminations in our company monthly newsletter.  I think that's crazy!!!  There is no added benefit to it, unless it's someone retiring.  What would you do?   

This is NOT something I would do.  You want the company newsletter to be informative and somewhat positive.  What benefit would there be to listing the terminations?  If the answer is so that people know that someone is not with the company and then who to now go to with questions in that department then just have a section saying something like "if you have a benefits question, see X, if you have a expense report question see y, if you have a payroll question see Z", etc.

There are lots of other things you can put in the newsletter. I would tell the President that whether someone left involuntary or voluntary is actually not information you want to give out to the rest of the company. I would come up with a list of other topics that you would much rather highlight in the newsletter.  Some examples could be significant anniversaries with the company, new hires, benefits information, FAQs, special recognition of job well done, etc.

 

HRBaby:

The president wants us to start listing voluntary and involuntary terminations in our company monthly newsletter.  I think that's crazy!!!  There is no added benefit to it, unless it's someone retiring.  What would you do?   

 

Ask the President if (s)he thinks it would be wise to put the names out in a community announcement line ad in the local paper, too.  That may drive the point home.  IT's point about explaining how work flow will happen without that person (or who the new person is as an introductory note) is a good practice.

I'm wondering what goal (s)he is trying to affect.  Is this to threaten the remaining staff to increase performance because there is lower productivity as a result of layoff, terms etc?  If this is the desired result, I'd do my homework and have leading examples of what really works to increase productivity of EEs instead of beating them one more time.

Or is this a way to show that less people have to do more in order to support the mid-management level in their efforts to get people to assume more responsibility at the same pay, sometimes even having to work extra hours which affects their work-life balance.  Or they don't feel comfortable because they don't really know how to do that job and they like to do a good job.

 I'd try to get a better understanding of what is really desired and head it off at the gate with HR supportive documentation of what really works to acheive thta goal instead of publically shaming people who had dedicated their lives, time and effort to your company.  Remember the EEs reading this newsletter are still friends with those who have been termed and they are EEs: meaning how it affects them makes all the difference in the world to their loyalty and productivity.

 Good luck!

Hey, just reissue the phone list.  Don't think that employees won't check to see who is gone and who is still there.  Much more subtle.

The advice given is spot on without a doubt; however, I must say having dealt with a CEO/Pres of similar nature - sometimes the leader is the last person that should be leading.  Sad that you have to deal with such idiocy at the top HRBaby.