Managing the Disappointment of Job Termination

10.1177/0021886304263848ARTICLETHE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCEMarch 2004Miller, Robinson / MANAGING JOB TERMINATION

Managing the Disappointmentof Job TerminationOutplacement as a Cooling-Out Device

Michael V. MillerCherylon RobinsonUniversity of Texas at San Antonio

As termination has become common among high-status workers, an industry has evolvedthat purports to assist in their reemployment. Advocates of outplacement have empha-sized to employers, however, that the industry’s service primarily functions as a self-pro-tective device, minimizing the problematic reactions of job losers and bystanders. Theparticular strategy articulated by advocates for orchestrating the emotions, energies, andgoals of terminated workers is described, and is interpreted as being analogous to thatused by confidence game operators in “cooling-out” those they defraud.

Practitioners of outplacement exploit contradictory impressions about what theydo. On the surface, they seem to be promoting the welfare of those being sepa-rated from work. Indeed, the presence of an outplacement (OP) program popu-larly suggests that an employer is socially responsible, concerned with easing theemotional trauma of termination as well as shortening the stress of unemploy-ment by helping ex-employees obtain new jobs. On the other hand, OP practitio-ners communicate a far different image to those to whom they are marketing theirexpertise—terminating employers. Not intended for public consumption and devoid

49

Michael V. Miller is an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at San Antonio.

Cherylon Robinson is an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Texas at San Antonio.

THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE, Vol. 40 No. 1, March 2004 49-65DOI: 10.1177/0021886304263848© 2004 NTL Institute

of appeals to altruism or guilt, this view stresses the utility of their service for employ-ers, rather than employees whose interests in turn seem largely irrelevant.

Our goal in this article is to initiate critical discussion within the organizational sci-ence community about the OP consulting industry. In so doing, we do not report find-ings from an empirical investigation of current OP practices. Instead, we address thedominant concept around which the service has been marketed to corporate America.Through an examination of works written by OP proponents, a body of literaturelargely crafted by those employed within the industry, we find that the articulatedproduct definition for OP closely parallels Goffman’s (1952) metaphor of “cooling-out the mark.” In describing the concerns that the service is said to address and thecommon tactics that its practitioners say they employ, we specifically observe that OPis depicted in this literature as a highly rationalized attempt to influence terminationsto the ultimate benefit of employers by cooling-out the terminated and other entitieswho might identify with them.

To a great extent, the utilitarian value of OP has been conveyed to employers bythose who are commonly called upon to coordinate the termination process withintheir companies. OP advocates have primarily reached this audience of humanresource (HR) specialists, who must “be able to demonstrate to top management whyoutplacement is good business” (Simon, 1988, p. 52) through various books and arti-cles contributed to HR journals and magazines. In reviewing these works, we discov-ered that virtually none touted OP as a humanitarian service (for an exception, seeMirabile, 1985); they were instead consistent in describing from a managerial stand-point the source and nature of termination problems and how OP could overcomethese problems.

BACKGROUND: THE OUTPLACEMENTCONSULTING INDUSTRY

OP practitioners, variously called in the vernacular “consultants,” “counselors,” orsimply “outplacers,” are hired by “sponsors” or “corporate clients” (terminatingemployers) to work with “clients” or “candidates” (terminatees). Outplacers do notnecessarily get jobs for clients. Rather, they are supposed to smooth the transition fromjob loss to reemployment as they ostensibly help terminatees manage their emotionsfollowing dismissal and offer advice and aid relative to job search and procurement.Although now supplied by some employers in certain situations through their in-houseHR function, OP has been commonly provided in the past by external consultants.

The OP consulting industry within the United States has grown from several firmsin 1970 to more than 200 companies today, with annual earnings in excess of $650 mil-lion (Cowden, 1992). About half of all corporations provided OP to at least some oftheir employees terminated during the mid-1980s (American Management Associa-tion, 1987), and over three fourths of the largest thousand gave OP to displaced execu-tives and managers (Kirkpatrick, 1991). OP also has been used by firms in Europe(e.g., Bikerstaffe, 1980) and has been offered on a limited basis by government anduniversity employers (e.g., McDaniels, 1983; Schlossberg & Leibowitz, 1980).

50 THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE March 2004

OP was first directed only to those within the higher reaches of corporate structures.By the early 1970s, sharp international competition, rising debt, and the commonoccurrence of merger and reorganization began having significant impact on manag-ers and professionals—groups previously insulated from job loss to a great extent.These trends have encouraged widespread “downsizing” and “delayering” since then,and given such dynamics, firms also have become less reluctant to fire, rather than“shelf-sit” or demote, unproductive employees (e.g., Bearak, 1982; Gallagher, 1979).

Although the industry developed in relation to the new vulnerability of this elite,such workers are not alone today in receiving assistance. Corporations have increas-ingly turned to it in response to terminations at all levels. Full-service OP, entailingpersonalized counseling and consulting from dismissal to reemployment, is still lim-ited to those above middle management in light of cost (usually 15% of the client’sannual salary). However, OP is also available in less intensive forms: For example, atthe minimum, it may involve only a meeting or two at which clients en masse arebriefed on coping with job loss trauma, helped with resumes, and given job marketadvice (e.g., Simon 1988). Group OP of this sort is directed generally at lower levelpersonnel and is often provided on an in-house basis, particularly in cases of large lay-offs (e.g., Daspin, 1985; Filipczak, 1992; Janotta, 1987).

THE COOLING-OUT METAPHOR: GOFFMAN

Relative to criminal fraud, Goffman (1952) observed that operators, following aconfidence game, commonly attempt to “cool-out the mark.” That is, they often try toreconcile or placate those exploited in the course of the scam, because they are con-cerned that such people may later harm them in some way (e.g., complain to authori-ties, become violent, etc.).

Goffman applied the concept to other situations involving adaptation to loss, notingthat marks are cooled-out not only because they have been diminished materially, butalso because they may experience humiliation. Losing a valued role, like falling for acon, indicates inaccurate self-definition. Those whose self-concepts have been builtup and then shattered are thus the subjects of the cooling-out process, for they mayreact to this insult in any number of ways that are problematical for those who have dis-appointed them. He also pointed out that the utility of the metaphor need not hinge ondeliberate fraud—those sponsoring cooling-out efforts actually may have acted in“good faith.” Rather, the issue is that parties believe that their interests are at risk asmarks react to loss, and thus they use the strategy to limit the ramifications brought bysuch disappointment. Goffman added that organizations especially should attend tothose they frustrate, because they, unlike con artists, cannot “take it on the lam” (1952,p. 424).

Goffman squarely anticipated a key function of OP by noting that marks may bepacified by giving them an alternative to loss through the promise of a new status.Marks may likewise be cooled-out through “ventilation” (dissipating anger by encour-aging full emotional expression), “stalling” (delaying reaction to the loss by suggest-ing that it may not actually take place), and “bribery” (helping to avoid further humili-

Miller, Robinson / MANAGING JOB TERMINATION 51

ation by agreeing to prevent public knowledge on the condition of leaving quietly).Goffman also suggested that marks will more likely accept being cooled if their cool-ers possess higher organizational status.

We should add that little attention has been directed to the concept beyond this ini-tial analysis. The cooling-out function of junior colleges as they reconcile poor youthto their failure to obtain a college degree has been examined (Clark, 1960), as has theprocess used by waitresses and female patrons of bars to cool-out men makingunwanted advances toward them (Snow, Robinson, & McCall, 1991). Also, cooling-out opposition within organizations for purposes of fostering managerial control andefficiency has been observed (Walton & Warwick, 1973) as a growing function of thepractice of organizational development, however, Goffman’s framework was notemployed in this work. Although no research has been subsequently devoted to theproblem of cooling-out terminatees, Goffman did note that job loss is often accompa-nied by cooling-out activity. Indeed, he used termination, along with other forms ofpersonal loss, to illustrate relevant techniques. Such efforts were seen as being ad hocand informal, nevertheless—effected by employers in a piecemeal, idiosyncratic man-ner. He certainly did not foresee the creation of an occupational specialty to handlethese tasks.

THE COOLING-OUT METAPHOR ASTHE DOMINANT PRODUCT DEFINITION

Social innovations that become commercialized may be fruitfully analyzed from amarketing perspective (e.g., Krell, 1981). Any service, of course, should be promotedon the basis of its capacity to satisfy buyer needs: “The wise marketer must define theproduct in terms of the present and potential benefits desired by customers. . . . A betterbundle has strategic advantage because it provides consumers with more reasons topurchase the product” (Onkvisit & Shaw, 1989, p. 17).

Although perhaps first perceived by employers as merely the “right thing to do”(e.g., McIntosh, 1973; Scherba, 1973) or as a way to alleviate “corporate guilt” (e.g.,Welles, 1978), OP has been increasingly marketed in pragmatic, buyer-oriented termsthat are consistent with the cooling-out metaphor. The dominant product definitioncentrally holds that a critical need exists for the service in that dismissal not onlyinvolves personal loss, but also the common perception of having been “taken.” More-over, in many instances, the dismissed will not be alone in being disturbed: Distressmay radiate outward, prompting sympathetic others to likewise react in oppositionalways; even employers and supervisors themselves may have difficulty with dismissal.In all, as we will show, the dominant definition makes OP appear to be viable forminimizing a variety of termination costs.

Terminated Workers

From Goffman’s perspective, it is apparent why OP first came to be focused onupper level employees. They are thought to be far more emotionally distressed by ter-


mination than others, given their greater time, financial, and ego-identity investmentsin career (e.g., Kaufman, 1982; Latack & Dozier, 1986). They have also been tradi-tionally regarded as being exempt from termination without cause. Indeed, the productdefinition holds that they have been tied to their employers through a special “psycho-logical contract”—an implicit understanding that competence, hard work, and loyalservice would result in lifetime employment. Hence, given their perception thatemployers have treated them unfairly by terminating them, they are apt to becomeresentful and retaliate (e.g., Axmith, 1981; Brockner, 1992; Knowdell, 1983; Latack& Dozier, 1986; Latack & Kaufman, 1988; Morin & Yorks, 1982; Rice & Dreilinger,1991; Sweet, 1989).

Although theft, sabotage, violence, and even “bad-mouthing” are of concern,employers are warned in particular about litigation: many terminatees “sue their for-mer companies not simply to gain a few months extra severance pay, but instead toexpress their anger and bitterness at the way that they have been treated” (Axmith,1981, p. 36). And, according to advocates (e.g., Gibson, 1991; Latack & Dozier, 1986;Nobile, 1991), the courts have come more than ever to uphold those bringing wrongfuldischarge suits as recently enacted laws have progressively undermined the concept ofat-will employment. Job losers also have become increasingly litigious: They arebetter informed about their rights and far less fearful of being blackballed. As one OPlegal specialist notes, “the average worker today has an attitude that they [sic] havenothing to lose by suing an employer” (Nobile, 1991, p. 5). However, the literature isemphatic in contending that the threat of litigation is minimized with OP (e.g., Associ-ation of Outplacement Consulting Firms, 1991; Axmith, 1981; Challenger, 1989;Granholm, 1991; Morin & Yorks, 1982; Nobile, 1991). Indeed, it is said to be oftenrepeated within the industry that, “People who are speaking to outplacement counsel-ors are not speaking to attorneys about how they were mistreated” (Sweet, 1989, p.160), and employers are advised that a prime consideration in selecting a consultingfirm should be the training they give to their outplacers in reducing legal risk (e.g.,Simon, 1988).

Terminatees are secondly problematical, according to the product definition, inimposing significant costs through severance expenditures (e.g., Bearak, 1982; Hoban,1987; Stybel, 1985; Sweet, 1989). The literature argues that employers are often toogenerous, possibly out of guilt or the desire to buy off terminatees, and that OP canbring major savings in this regard. Advocates stress too that excessive severancereduces job-search motivation, leading in turn to even greater corporate expenseshould it continue to be paid until new work is obtained. Severance oversight is finallybelieved to be crucial because anything delaying reemployment heightens the likeli-hood of retaliation (e.g., Burdett, 1988; Challenger, 1989). Although these remarksare largely appropriate to displaced managers and professionals, minimizing the job-less period for blue-collar workers is likewise thought to be important as state govern-ments are requiring terminating employers to bear greater unemployment compensa-tion costs (e.g., Hoban, 1987; Leana & Ivancevich, 1987).

Given this discussion, it is apparent why the literature counsels against allowingterminatees to select their own OP consultants. Some advocates (e.g., Sweet, 1989)hold that employers have a paternal obligation (i.e., the dismissed lack the knowledge


or the composure under the circumstances to make the best selection), but others areblunt about the primacy of corporate interests. Perhaps the point is most explicitlystated in one prominent advocate’s suggestion that HR officers should ponder twoquestions before letting terminatees make a choice: Will it help “the company avoidpossible litigation? [And] . . . will it substantially add to the amount of severance thecompany must pay?” (Challenger, 1989, p. 28). Moreover, central to the industry is theprescription that OP should be in place prior to termination notice. As the Associationof Outplacement Consulting Firms notes in its promotional brochure: “Much of thevalue of outplacement is in the planning and training prior to a termination, and espe-cially in meeting with the employee immediately after the termination occurs. . . . It isalso during this time that the stage is set to diffuse the idea of potential law suits”(1991, p. 8).

Bystanders

Although Goffman viewed the mark as the only object to which cooling-out effortsneed be directed, OP advocates stress that others should be likewise addressed, partic-ularly in situations of large layoffs or reduction in forces. “Workplace survivors” areheld to be the most threatening to employers, especially if they have identified closelywith the dismissed (e.g., Brockner, 1992; Simon, 1988; Weinstein & Leibman, 1991).Those remaining on the job “watch the way management treats a terminated employee,and they take this as a signal of how they will be treated” (Guinn, 1988, p. 49). Theymay experience any of several reactions, ranging from “survivor’s guilt” to anxietyabout their own jobs and diminished trust in employers. Accordingly, productivitymay be damaged as survivors become reluctant to extend effort and take risks for theirfirms and as the best workers flee to more attractive employers. Advocates, therefore,agree that “If you . . . are to help employees function effectively after downsizing, youmust re-establish employees’ feelings of security and their belief that they can stillcount on the organization for fairness and justice” (Rice & Dreilinger, 1991, p. 42).

The OP literature also points out that terminations have broader implications.Recruitment can prove difficult for firms once they become known for holding littlepromise of job security or dealing coldly with their employees (e.g., Granholm, 1991;Latack & Dozier, 1986). Furthermore, mass terminations may lead to negative com-munity perceptions which could cause profits to fall if offending firms sell their prod-ucts to the public (e.g., Granholm, 1991; Kingsley, 1984).

For reasons of bystanders, therefore, the literature stresses that OP is valuable as itwill help ensure that the employer is perceived as being socially responsible. Hiringconsultants “demonstrates that the company is committed to doing all that is reason-ably possible” (Granholm, 1991, p. 221). Indeed, offering assistance may even con-tribute to a stronger public image: OP can transform terminations into “prime opportu-nities for the public to see how an effective organization is at retaining productivity andat treating everyone humanely” (Simon, 1988, p. 54); paradoxically, management can“show its commitment to its employees, even . . . in the process of separating themfrom the organization” (Brockner, 1992, p. 22).


Terminators

Finally, those responsible for dismissal may require assistance. Employers are notnecessarily eager to terminate—they may fear the repercussions, as discussed, andthey may have genuine concerns about their employees’ welfare. Terminating agentsare likely to have even greater problems: If they know termination candidates on apersonal level, the anticipation as well as the conduct of dismissal may be quitestress-provoking. Anxiety, guilt, and anger are held to be commonly associated withthe event (e.g., Latack & Kaufman, 1988; Morin, 1977). Supervisors also tend to lackthe expertise to dismiss effectively because they rarely receive relevant training (e.g.,Brockner, 1992). As a result, terminators frequently procrastinate or otherwise mis-handle dismissal: The notification meeting often is “evasive, ambiguous, confusing,demoralizing—or all four . . . it only exacerbates an already unhappy situation”(Driessnack, 1978, p. 25).

Having a vested interest in termination, the OP consulting industry has thus workedhard to promote its practice. As shown, advocates have tried to convince employersthat they need not be apprehensive about termination if OP is in place. Also, propo-nents have sought to relieve corporate consciences by reasoning that dismissal notonly serves company interests, but works to the best for terminatees too provided theyare given OP (e.g., Driessnack, 1978; Kirkpatrick, 1991). Finally, the fact that employ-ees will get OP, and also that consultants will give training in effective notificationtechniques, is believed to make dismissal far less stressful for terminating agents (e.g.,Morin & Yorks, 1982).

THE OUTPLACEMENT MICROPROCESS

Minimizing retaliation and severance are both accomplished through the OPmicroprocess by shifting clients’ attention from lost jobs to reemployment. Full-service OP, of course, represents the most thorough effort to preempt complications.The value of group OP, on the other hand, appears to lie more in the realm of publicrelations than in its ability to deal with terminatees. We direct attention to full-serviceassistance here to illustrate the entire OP strategy that can be practiced on clients. Oursynthesis of the literature suggests that such efforts comprise a highly rationalized pro-cess marked by five central tasks largely effected in temporal sequence (Table 1).

Preparatory Advisement

Termination is invariably proposed to be less problematical if consultants collabo-rate early with terminators (e.g., Association of Outplacement Consulting Firms,1991; Kingsley, 1984; Morin & Yorks, 1982). For obvious reasons, outplacers do notthemselves execute dismissal. However, they do desire to engage in significantpretermination consultation, the professed objective of which “is to make the separa-tion as humane as possible, while retaining thoroughness and efficiency” (Gibson,1991, p. 4).


During this phase, practitioners generally function as “technical advisers,” offeringinstruction on how to most rationally dismiss those who will soon be their clients.They review severance packages and are especially concerned with ensuring that dis-missals are legally defensible should the cooling-out process fail. Outplacers likewisedevote considerable attention to coaching terminators on the specifics of providingnotice, for example, advising them about such details as the best time and place and theimportance of being explicit and brief in communicating the dismissal decision (e.g.,Gibson, 1991; Macklin & Minsuk, 1991; Stybel, Cooper, & Peabody, 1982). Inattempting to calm apprehensions, outplacers may even rehearse agents for the eventby role playing (e.g., Cuddihy, 1974).

Finally, outplacers may help employers develop the rationale for termination thatwill be communicated to relevant parties. The reference letter “cover story” should beas positive as possible; certainly, it should not lessen prospects for timely reemployment.Announcements to coworkers, on the other hand, should be especially concerned withthe issue of fairness, and as well should allay fears of impending termination. As oneproponent reasons, “The in-house story will be a safety net for the terminatedemployee to help him or her get another job” (Kingsley, 1984, p. 162).

Neutralization of Affect

Advocates of OP are unanimous in contending that employees are traumatizedupon being notified of termination. Outplacers are especially concerned with defusing


TABLE 1

The Outplacement Microprocess

Task Tactic

Employer-directedPreparatory advisement Dismissal technique instruction

Review severance terms and legal defensibility of dismissalDevise cover stories

Terminatee-directedAffect neutralization Ventilation

Crisis counselingObjectification of emotional stages of job loss

Situational redefinition Minimization of blameDefinitional transformationGeneration of complicityEmbarrassment managementBribery

Identity reconstitution Client self-assessmentSelf-esteem counselingSelf-marketing advice

Reemployment facilitation Job search advice and encouragementSupport servicesPeriodic review and supportive adviceDiagnostic interview, including role playing and personal counseling

the hostility that surfaces with dismissal not only because it fuels retaliation, but alsobecause it may deflect attention from job goals and color interaction with prospectiveemployers, thereby prolonging unemployment.

During the “crisis management period” (Gibson, 1991, p. 4) clients accordinglybegin confronting the reality of job loss. In addition to generating ill-feelings about ex-employers and concerns over finances, termination commonly damages self-concept,particularly among management personnel for whom work and the organization tendto be central to identity. Unemployment also entails an abrupt break from regimentedactivity, and the loss of such structure may exacerbate negative affect: “anger, depres-sion, and destructive thinking . . . tend to come to a boil if people have nothing but timeon their hands” (Filipczak, 1992, p. 48). OP thus begins serving immediately as animportant support resource, according to advocates, with the outplacer in the role of“helping hand,” leading terminatees “through the harrowing and frightening emotionalstages” (Kingsley, 1984, p. 98).

Affect-neutralization primarily involves managing clients’ first reactions, whilealso impressing on them that dismissal is real and irrevocable. Outplacers are sup-posed to contact terminatees immediately after notice in order to contain harmful reac-tions, a goal which may be facilitated by relocating them at neutral sites within firms orin consultants’offices (e.g., Macklin & Minsuk, 1991; Stybel et al., 1982, p. 79). Prac-titioners have been known also to go home with especially anxious or distraught cli-ents to help with any acute fall-out that might result within the family (e.g., Bearak,1982; Kingsley, 1984). Additionally, consultants may engage in more structuredcounseling with spouses and children through “family goal-setting conferences” inorder to minimize trauma and gain support (e.g., Stybel et al., 1982).

Outplacers attempt to defuse negative affect largely by encouraging client ventila-tion. Goffman recognized that catharsis is promoted by permitting the mark “toexplode, to break down, to cause a scene, to give full vent to his reactions and feelings”(1952, p. 457). And indeed, the outplacer is said to serve as “a lightning rod that drawsthe anger and dejection of the candidate” (Furler, 1980, p. 369). Accordingly, “Thecounselor should be prepared to employ crisis counseling techniques with these cli-ents. Open-ended questions, accepting behaviors, restatement, and silence are the fun-damental tools of such counseling” (Morin & Yorks, 1990, p. 181). Aside from dissi-pating rage, ventilation may be useful as well in providing uncensored informationand insights about client concerns that can be addressed later (e.g., Morin & Yorks,1990).

Finally, affect-neutralization may be served through the objectification of dismissalresponse, that is, by informing clients about patterns of emotional reaction they arelikely to experience. Confronting job loss is held to be similar to learning that one has aterminal disease (Finley & Lee, 1981). Both events entail successive responses ofdenial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance—and like the ill, job losers“may benefit from knowing that there is a typical psychological progression. Under-standing that one’s reactions are typical rather than abnormal can reduce stress”(Latack & Dozier, 1986, p. 386).


Redefinition of the Situation

Outplacers are said to be highly concerned with redefining dismissals so they aredefensible for both clients and ex-employers. Essentially involving, to borrow fromGoffman, “instruction in the philosophy of taking a loss” (1952, p. 452), redefinitionaims to bring clients to accept the fact of termination and the idea that they gain noth-ing through retaliation. Redefinition is also regarded as important in helping themcope with dismissal in their own minds (unresolved issues deflect attention fromreemployment), and for generating more positive attitudes with which to later impressjob contacts.

Practitioners promote acquiescence by attempting to minimize blame-placingbehavior. Regardless of whether clients blame their situation on former employers (asthey do usually) or themselves, outplacers will instruct them that rarely is any partyentirely at fault, and moreover, that ultimate responsibility is quite irrelevant. As oneconsultant notes, “There is a growing awareness of the no-fault character of termina-tion. . . . There is less emphasis on placing blame than on getting both parties separatedwith as little damage to both sides as possible” (quoted by Kingsley, 1984, p. 100).Indeed, outplacers are said to “best serve most clients by helping them understand that,whether the problem was caused by them, others, or some combination of both, themost constructive use of energy is in gaining control of the future” (Morin & Yorks,1990, p. 208).

Blaming is often muted and attention redirected by redefining the implications oftermination. Outplacers are said to encourage clients to adopt the view that losing a jobis not a personal tragedy nor even a negative event. As one academic proponentobserves,

the outplacement counselor’s role is to try to minimize this blame by focusing on the terminationas actually a solution [italics added]. The termination allows the affected employee to move on toa new challenge and career satisfaction rather than the frustration of a bad job fit. (Knowdell, 1983,pp. 22-23)

Thus, outplacers commonly attempt to transform dismissal definitionally from anending to a “beginning,” although as one OP executive candidly concedes, “It’s hard toconvince some people that leaving the corporate situation may be the best thing thatever happened to them” (quoted by Huey, 1992, p. 57).

Another important redefinition tactic flows from the fact that people typically wishto save face. Therefore, “a major focus of most outplacement programs revolvesaround teaching employees how to approach colleagues so that there is least embar-rassment for all parties concerned” (Stybel, 1985, p. 296). Clients are advised to giveothers the cover story so that they may appear to have left by choice and on good terms.If necessary, they are also warned that negative displays against ex-employers obvi-ously betray the redefinition. Indeed, practitioners are said to axiomatically respondthat “angry outbursts and disparaging remarks about the company hurt the job-seekermuch more than the company” (Knowdell, 1983, p. 27). Although reemployment mayhinge on effectively conveying the cover story to contacts and potential employers,such complicity also has an important implication for broader outplacer objectives:


Given that people generally desire to behave in a manner consistent with the publiccommitments they have made (Cialdini, 1984), clients who employ the cover story arenot likely to retaliate later.

Finally, a less subtle form of bribery is evident within situational redefinitionshould clients be made to understand that maintaining the illusion of goodwill is criti-cal for the continuation of favors. For example, outplacers may advise employers dur-ing the pretermination phase to draw up formal agreements, stipulating that severancewill cease if terminatees try to retaliate (e.g., Granholm, 1991; Stybel et al., 1982).Outplacers also will emphasize to clients that positive references from former supervi-sors are contingent on continued cooperation. Moreover, should clients even give hintof litigation interest, consultants will warn them that such action will jeopardizechances for reemployment:

They are informed that their counseling cannot continue until the threat of a lawsuit is over. Candi-dates are reminded that a lawsuit or any adversarial position is contrary to the counseling emphasis,and are advised that once they have sued, it is difficult for them to be placed. (Brammer &Humberger, 1984, p. 28)

In sum, situational redefinition and the previous task of affect-neutralization areintended above all to minimize the potential for retaliation. As such, they clearly servethe interests of terminating firms—a point succinctly made by two prominent OPindustry leaders:

[The outplacer] must be prepared for whatever reactions the client may exhibit. The sponsor com-pany expects the counselor to “handle the situation,” which translates into helping the executive“accept” the termination and preventing him or her from doing anything foolhardy or irrational.Essentially, the company’s need is to have the aftermath of the event managed and under control[italics added]. (Morin & Yorks, 1990, p. 179)

Reconstitution of Identity

Dismissal denotes rejection, and rejection generally produces anger. From the OPperspective, situational redefinition should also facilitate redefinitions of self, servingin turn to enhance psychological distance from former employers. Certainly, thepotential for retaliation is diminished to the extent that clients define themselves less as“terminated employees” and more as “unemployed workers.” Rejection also deals ablow to self-esteem—even if job loss blame is not internalized—and this may compro-mise one’s ability to secure another job. OP strategists (e.g., Brammer & Humberger,1984; Furler, 1980; Morin & Yorks, 1982) therefore suggest that identity restoration isan important precondition to job search efforts. “Counseling is needed to help the indi-vidual rebuild the feeling of personal competence and the motivation that are essentialfor coping with and solving survival and employment problems” (Granholm, 1991,p. 223). In short, outplacers must convince clients that termination does not equatewith failure.

Identity work essentially entails “redefining the self along defensible lines” (Goffman,1952, p. 456) and can be coextensive with certain redefinition elements such as blame-minimizing attempts. A common first step in this process is self-assessment, a tactic


typically predicated on a survey inventory usually given just after ventilation. Provid-ing ample material on client strengths, achievements, and life goals with which to laterimpress prospective employers, it also has utility for career planning—particularly incases where competency is at issue. Furthermore, the survey reportedly meets impor-tant psychological functions: It can take up to several days to complete, thus serving todecenter emotional attention from the termination (Knowdell, 1983). More impor-tantly, it is said to help shift primary focus from the lost status to the potential for afuture status by providing data that outplacers can use as they counsel clients towardbuilding a sense of self that transcends recent failure (e.g., Kingsley, 1984; Knowdell,1983). Such information encourages clients to address their entire record, remindingthem they are still skilled and competent, and therefore able to make further contribu-tions. Within this context, identity work also facilitates situational redefinition, as ter-mination can then be reframed as only a temporary setback rather than a career-endingevent.

Identity reconstitution finally includes assistance in preparing clients for job-seeking activities. This comprises, in effect, a “personal marketing campaign plan”(Morin & Yorks, 1982, p. 167), a self-presentation strategy designed to maximizereemployment potential. Beyond forging a more attractive client image by helpingwith resumes and cover letters, outplacers usually coach them on interview skills andmay even recommend a change in appearance, such as in dress or hair style. In light ofthese efforts, clients are held to gain confidence about competing with other job-seekers: “It is not unusual . . . within 2 weeks of the termination date, to notice physicalchanges in the candidate: he is standing straighter, smiling more often, speaking withmore conviction and getting impatient to proceed to the next step” (Furler, 1980,p. 368).

Facilitation of Reemployment

Given that proponents believe that terminatees are problematic for former employ-ers to the extent they remain unemployed, outplacers are finally supposed to help themfind jobs:

When a person is in as stressful a situation as termination, it is a big plus to have someone else worry-ing about the problem, too. That’s really what the outplacement counselor is being paid for—to leadthe individual through the maze of the job search. (Sweet, 1989, p. 148)

OP consultants urge clients to contact friends and colleagues to ferret out leads, inaddition to using traditional techniques like scatter-shot mailings and answering clas-sified ads. Basic to full-service OP is the provision of office space and “support ser-vices,” including typing, phone answering, and so on. Importantly, clients are givenadvice about how to penetrate and work the “hidden job market.” They are asked toprepare a list of companies having jobs which they are qualified for. Although suchfirms may not have advertised openings, outplacers stress that they could be lookingfor people to replace current employees. Clients are urged to ask acquaintances withinthese companies to arrange introductions (i.e., informal interviews) with those in hir-ing positions (e.g., Furler, 1980; Kingsley, 1984).


During the job search, consultants commonly conduct “periodic reviews.” “Sup-portive advice” is given on recognition of the approach of serious job offers or on themethods by which companies sluggish in extending offers may be prompted to do so(e.g., Morin & Yorks, 1982). Outplacers also attempt to maintain morale and perspec-tive for less successful job hunters or those having unrealistic expectations. “Diagnos-tic interviews” are held with clients who have been consistently rejected. Role playingmay remedy interview style; low morale is usually handled through personal counsel-ing. Where unproductive searches result from procrastination, outplacers attempt to“remove obstacles to action or clarify goals” (Brammer & Humberger, 1984, p. 102).

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS RELEVANTTO THE MICROPROCESS

Cooling-out tasks are thought to succeed in proportion to the trust and confidenceinstilled in clients. The groundwork for “bonding” is laid during ventilation asoutplacers serve as sympathetic listeners (e.g., Gibson, 1991; Guinn, 1988). And, con-tinued encouragement and support over the microprocess likewise help build client“indebtedness”—an attitude which should importantly militate against thoughts ofretaliation (e.g., Sweet, 1989).

Advocates observe that gaining rapport is an important function of consultant iden-tity. External outplacers are considered to be preferable to in-house specialists for thispurpose because they are less apt to be regarded as the agents of employers (e.g.,Bearak, 1982; Driessnack, 1978; Gibson, 1991; Morin & Yorks, 1982). Also, inaccord with Goffman’s observation, it is thought that credibility is enhanced if consul-tants have greater social status than clients—an additional consideration making in-house OP even less appropriate for handling higher management personnel. Thisrequirement is said to account as well for the paucity of women in consulting roles(e.g., Phelps & Mason, 1991) and the tendency among OP firms to bestow the title of“vice-president” on practitioners (e.g., Knowdell, 1983).

CONCLUSIONS

Arguments concerning the need for termination protection, as well as descriptionsof the strategy and tactics for doing so, can be viewed as attempts to promote the adop-tion of OP. We have shown that the service is characterized in such marketing efforts asa functionally rational innovation for enhancing organizational interests by makingterminations nonthreatening, predictable, and cost efficient. These results are accord-ingly realized by treating various parties, especially those who have been dismissed, asobjects to be reconciled to the fact of termination. Indeed, the dominant definitionholds that the basic value of OP lies in its ability to manage disappointment, and there-fore, we submit that the service can be meaningfully interpreted through the metaphorof cooling-out the mark.


The practice of OP as described by proponents, nevertheless, goes well beyond ear-lier ideas about the cooling-out process. Goffman (1952) did not anticipate the patentformalization of cooling-out efforts, much less the development of a large industrydedicated to their pursuit; nor did he foresee that cooling-out tactics might becomeclosely integrated and function in temporal sequence. Cooling-out the mark appearedfor him rather to border on an art form, involving the application of special behavioralinsights and a degree of interpersonal finesse practicable by few. Yet, as shown, OP isinstitutionalized and packaged. It constitutes a well-defined process at the microlevel,and it is held, in addition, to be effective in neutralizing adverse responses frombystanders.

Analysis of this service as a cooling-out device leads us to question the extent towhich it can be “mutually beneficial,” as industry advocates claim, actually promotingthe interests of terminatees and employers alike. OP, no doubt, has helped many termi-nated workers to get on with their lives. However, its fundamental utility arises fromthe fact that the goals of both are often incompatible: Firms are obviously at odds withterminatees who attempt to gain justice by pressing workplace grievances. Andalthough the dismissed want jobs that are no less than those which they left, ex-employers may be more concerned with helping them obtain quick reemploymentthan quality reemployment. The industry does report sensitivity to the dilemma thatpractitioners may encounter as they pursue their craft; for example, its ethical codetakes note of “the unique dual relationship” involving consultants, stating that theyshould be “mindful of the need to professionally provide service to each public with-out compromising the other” (Association of Outplacement Consulting Firms, nodate). Nonetheless, as indicated in this article, advocates have been explicit aboutwhose interests are of priority, having marketed their service through the HR literatureas a vehicle for termination management.

If consulting and counseling practices are driven, in fact, by the dominant defini-tion, we would contend that the industry is incapable of attending objectively toterminatees. Proponents’descriptions of the microprocess, as shown, provide detailedinstruction on the ways by which outplacers can maneuver workers, even against theirown intentions, into serving employers’ ends after job loss. Deception, in particular,seems intrinsic to this strategy—and doubtless, terminatees would be far less receptiveto OP if they knew that their consultants had helped to get rid of them and were alsoformally committed to limiting their severance and grievance potential.

In light of this analysis, we urge the HR professional community to contemplate theadoption of outplacement concepts that would explicitly respect terminated workers.Splitting the dual consulting role of outplacers so that they would serve only one client,and thus not be open to a conflict of interest seems to be a relevant first step. In thisregard, the feasibility of granting terminatees greater control, allowing them to eitherselect their own consultants or draw additional severance pay in lieu of OP, should beclosely examined. Where OP continues to be provided directly by employers, on theother hand, the ethical implications of doing so merit full exploration. At the mini-mum, the issue of informed consent seems critical: Employer-contracted OP would beless morally objectionable, in our opinion, if the dismissed would at least receive clearinstruction about consultant goals and means.


Although the dominant definition reflects the industry’s opinion of the most prag-matic way to sell OP, our conclusions about it should not be taken as an indictment ofeither individual practitioners or those who have used the service. Future research mayfind that many consultants sincerely want to promote the best interests of the dis-missed and do not operate as outlined. It may well be also that HR officers are com-monly guided by humane values in trying to secure OP for termination candidates, yetfeel compelled to use arguments based on corporate instrumentalism in advocating theservice to senior management.

Even if actual OP practices are more benign than suggested in this article, weremain troubled about the dominant definition. Clearly, the marketing message hastrivialized layoffs and firings—stressing that their social and economic costs are negli-gible with the provision of OP. In light of this view of OP as a panacea, and given theabsence of hard research on service effectiveness which might refute it, employersmay be less apt to fully weigh termination against nontermination alternatives in seek-ing to solve workforce problems. Should this be the case, we would conclude thatadvocates have made the decision to dismiss far easier to reach, and thus havecontributed substantially to the current prominence of termination among corporatemanagement tactics.

REFERENCES

American Management Association. (1987). Responsible reductions in force. New York: AMA Publications.Association of Outplacement Consulting Firms. (1991). Outplacement: A guide for client corporations.

Parsippany, NJ: Author.Association of Outplacement Consulting Firms. (no date). Professional code of ethics. Parsippany, NJ:

Author.Axmith, M. (1981). The act of firing: A constructive approach. Business Quarterly, 46(1), 36-45.Bearak, J. A. (1982). Termination made easier: Is outplacement really the answer? Personnel Administrator,

27(4), 63-71.Bikerstaffe, G. (1980). Coming to terms with executive redundancy. International Management, 35(11),

24-26.Brammer, L. M., & Humberger, F. E. (1984). Outplacement and inplacement counseling. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.Brockner, J. (1992). Managing the effects of layoffs on survivors. California Management Review, 34, 9-28.Burdett, J. O. (1988). Easing the way out: Consultants and counselors help terminated executives strategi-

cally and psychologically. Personnel Administrator, 33(6), 157-164.Challenger, J. E. (1989). When outplacement is a sham. Personnel Journal, 68(2), 27-30.Cialdini, R. B. (1984). Influence: How and why people agree to things. New York: William Morrow.Clark, B. E. (1960). The “cooling-out” function in higher education. American Journal of Sociology, 65,

569-576.Cowden, P. (1992). Outplacement services assessment. HRMagazine, 37(9), 69-70.Cuddihy, B. R. (1974). How to give phased-out managers a new start. Harvard Business Review, 52(4),

61-69.Daspin, E. (1985). Outplacement for hourly workers. Management Review, 74(5), 57-60.Driessnack, C. H. (1978). Outplacement: A benefit for both employee and company. Personnel Administra-

tor, 23(1), 24-26.Filipczak, B. (1992). Group outplacement: More than “how to write a resume.” Training, 29(6), 45-51.


Finley, M., & Lee, A. (1981). The terminated executive: It’s like dying. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 59,382-384.

Furler, C. (1980). Outplacement: A blessing in disguise. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 34(7),363-373.

Gallagher, J. J. (1979). What do you owe the executives you fire? Dun’s Review, 113(6), 109-111.Gibson, V. M. (1991). In the outplacement door. Personnel, 68, 3-4.Goffman, E. (1952). On cooling the mark out: Some aspects of adaptation to failure. Psychiatry, 15, 451-464.Granholm, A. R. (1991). Handbook of employee termination. New York: Wiley.Guinn, S. L. (1988). Outplacement programs: Separating myth from reality. Training and Development

Journal, 42(9), 48-49.Hoban, R. (1987). The outplacement option: Everyone wins! Personnel Administrator, 32(6), 184-193.Huey, J. (1992, January 27). Where will managers go? Fortune, 125, pp. 50-60.Janotta, J. (1987). Stroh’s outplacement success. Management Review, 76(1), 52-53.Kaufman, H. G. (1982). Professionals in search of work. New York: Wiley.Kingsley, D. T. (1984). How to fire an employee. New York: Facts on File.Kirkpatrick, D. (1991, April 8). The new executive unemployed. Fortune, 123, pp. 36-48.Knowdell, R. L. (1983). Outplacement counseling in business and industry. In R. L. Knowdell, C. O.

McDaniels, & G. R. Walz (Eds.), Outplacement counseling (pp. 3-58). Ann Arbor: ERIC Counselingand Personnel Service Clearinghouse, University of Michigan.

Krell, T. C. (1981). The marketing of organizational development: Past, present, and future. Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science, 17(3), 309-323.

Latack, J. C., & Dozier, J. B. (1986). After the ax falls: Job loss as career transition. Academy of ManagementReview, 11, 375-392.

Latack, J. C., & Kaufman, H. G. (1988). Termination and outplacement strategies. In M. London & E. M.Mone (Eds.), Career growth and human resource strategies (pp. 289-313). New York: Quorum.

Leana, C. R., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1987). Involuntary job loss: Institutional interventions and a researchagenda. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 301-312.

Macklin, P., & Minsuk, L. (1991). Ten ways to ease dismissal dread. HRMagazine, 36(11), 103-104.McDaniels, C. O. (1983). Outplacement: An occasion for faculty career development. In R. L. Knowdell,

C. O. McDaniels, & G. R. Walz (Eds.), Outplacement counseling (pp. 59-102). Ann Arbor: ERIC Coun-seling and Personnel Service Clearinghouse, University of Michigan.

McIntosh, S. S. (1973). Outplacement: The new responsibility in termination. Personnel Administrator,18(2), 10-13.

Mirabile, R. J. (1985). Outplacement as transition counseling. Journal of Employment Counseling, 22,39-45.

Morin, W. J. (1977). Outplacement counseling: What is it? Personnel and Guidance Journal, 55, 553-555.Morin, W. J., & Yorks, L. (1982). Outplacement techniques: A positive approach to terminating employees.

New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Morin, W. J., & Yorks, L. (1990). Dismissal: There is no easy way but there is a better way. New York: Drake

Beam Morin.Nobile, R. J. (1991). Outplacement counseling: Minimizing legal liability. Personnel, 68, 5.Onkvisit, S., & Shaw, J. J. (1989). Product life cycles and product management. New York: Quorum.Phelps, S., & Mason, M. (1991). When women lose their jobs. Personnel Journal, 70(8), 64-69.Rice, D., & Dreilinger, C. (1991). After the downsizing. Training and Development Journal, 45(5), 41-44.Scherba, J. (1973). Outplacement as a personal responsibility. Personnel, 66, 40-44.Schlossberg, N. K., & Leibowitz, Z. (1980). Organizational support systems as buffers to job loss. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 17, 204-217.Simon, D. R. (1988). Outplacement: Meeting needs, matching services. Training and Development Journal,

42(8), 52-57.Snow, D. A., Robinson, C., & McCall, P. L. (1991). “Cooling out” men in singles bars and nightclubs. Jour-

nal of Contemporary Ethnography, 19, 423-449.Stybel, L. J. (1985). Outplacement. In D. W. Myers (Ed.), Employee problem prevention and counseling (pp.

289-299). Westport, CT: Quorum.


Stybel, L. J., Cooper, R., & Peabody, M. (1982). Planning executive dismissals: How to fire a friend. Califor-nia Management Review, 24(3), 73-80.

Sweet, D. H. (1989). A manager’s guide to conducting terminations: Minimizing emotional stress and legalrisks. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Walton, R. E., & Warwick, D. P. (1973). The ethics of organization development. Journal of Applied Behav-ioral Science, 9(6), 681-698.

Weinstein, H. P., & Leibman, M. S. (1991). Corporate scale down: What comes next? HRMagazine, 36(8),33-37.

Welles, C. (1978, August 29). Is outplacement a corporate guilt trip? Esquire, pp. 56-59.


Date post:	02-Jul-2015
Category:	Education
Upload:	michael-miller
View:	896 times
Download:	0 times

Managing the Disappointment of Job Termination

Education