Few people want to be terminated from their employment, even when they hate their jobs. As employers, we know the personal crises termination can cause, and most of us want to handle these situations as compassionately as possible under the circumstances. This is like a delicate dance that requires finesse, understanding, and careful planning. When a family member is involved, the challenges are often greater.
“Dale” called us because she was struggling to take the action she knew her business needed. The family member she hired to assist her growing online store was often late for work, took long lunches, and asked to leave early, even when it was clear there was much work left undone. When he was at work, he was often on his cell phone or making errors that added more work for Dale. Her customers were not happy, and her business’ reputation was bruised. His employment had to be terminated, yet compassionately.
After a difficult and thorough analysis, she delivered the news. It was painful for her. He seemed indifferent. So, she was surprised when her honest response to the Department of Labor’s Unemployment Insurance claim resulted in a divided family. Her former employee’s UI claim was denied, and other family members angrily demanded Dale withdraw her response. She was not convinced that would that be the fairest or most empowering action she could take.
Despite the difficulties that accompanied this employment termination, it inspired growth and positive change in both of them. Here’s how we did it.
Action One: We Defined the Conflict Succinctly.
First, we needed her to focus. When all the emotion was filtered out, it was clear that Dale and her family members simply disagreed about her role in the UI process. That was it. No matter how much her family members might have wanted the conflict to be about their entire history together, what triggered the angry calls and difficult interactions at family gatherings was the UI claim. There might have been other conflicts to resolve, but this one was where she decided to assert herself.
Action Two: We Identifying the Personal Interests Causing the Conflict.
When completing the UI form, Dale wanted to abide by the relevant laws and honor her obligations as an employer. It was not her intent to harm her family member. Yet she didn’t believe it was up to her to decide whether or not he got money to live on until he found a new job. She had paid him for all the hours he worked, including when “working” was a generous term for what he was actually doing.
On the other hand, Dale’s family members wanted to know their unemployed loved one would still have sufficient income and support. His mom was afraid he’d move back home. His aunt saw an opportunity to attack Dale for succeeding and putting her own kids ahead of their cousins. I reminded Dale again that the current conflict was about the UI claim. She could address her sibling’s judgments another time, if she wished, or she could accept that there might always be judgment. Thus, it was her own that mattered most. As hurt as she was, she again focused on the unique facts and circumstances of the UI issues.
Action Three: We Played with the Full Range of Possibilities.
Dale’s creativity was evident in every aspect of her online store. It was relatively easy for her to imagine her ideal resolution scenario. She wanted the UI Division to apply the law fairly and accurately. Also, she hoped her family members would accept and respect the UI decision as a legal determination based on facts and evidence–not something she created or caused. Further, she was committed to her former employee-family member finding a higher paying job more compatible with his interests. She imagined much more enjoyable holidays if all this could come together. This imaginative exercise laid the groundwork for a positive trajectory beyond the conflict, and we began to create an action plan.
Action Four: We Created a New Future for Each of Them.
In time, Dale and her family members got what they wanted. It just looked a little different than they expected.
- Dale honored her word and allowed her statement about the employment termination to stand in support of the UI decision. This protected her from perjury and penalties her family members weren’t considering.
- She gave her former employee tips on finding the work that inspired him. He eventually found work in the industry he aspired to enter, and they are closer than ever.
- She remained loving and supportive, yet she stood up for herself, her business, and her word. She learned she could do this compassionately, despite the employment termination. So did the family member whose employment she terminated.
Additionally, Dale explored why a challenge from her family created insecurity she hadn’t felt since early adulthood. She healed some old wounds and created new bonds. She accepted that some relationships might never change, but she continues to leave an opening for unconditional love in her family relationships. This has allowed her to be more objective when hiring employees, especially if she chooses to hire a family member again.
Action Five: They are Staying on PARR.
I still speak to Dale somewhat regularly. Her journey continues with a solid track record of hiring compatible employees and external businesses. When they’ve parted, they often terminated the employment relationship together and compassionately. The Third Ear Conflict Resolution process has equipped her with the skills to navigate challenges effectively. She is a more effective manager and entrepreneur than ever.
What happened to her former family member-employee? He has a vibrant career, despite the pandemic that hit his industry hard. He even admits that being denied UI benefits probably motivated him to look for work with more urgency, which put him in the right place at the right time.