Most of what goes right or wrong when you let someone go is settled before you say a word. The decision itself, the paperwork, the timing, the first sentence, the plan for the team: by the time you sit down, those are either done or they are not. The meeting is short. The preparation is the job.

That matters because the meeting carries more weight than most managers assume. In a study of 996 recently fired or laid-off workers published in Administrative Science Quarterly, Allan Lind, Jerald Greenberg and colleagues found that whether someone pursued a wrongful-termination claim tracked most strongly with how they felt they were treated at the moment of termination, alongside what they expected to win. A follow-up panel four months later showed the treatment came first and the claiming thoughts followed. In plain terms: people sue over how they were fired at least as much as over why.

If you are a first-time manager facing your first termination, this is the order I would work in.

What the evidence says the meeting actually controls

Two outcomes hang on how you handle this: what the departing person does next, and what the people who stay conclude about you.

The first is the Lind and Greenberg finding above. Dignity in the room is not a soft extra; it is the variable most associated with whether a routine performance exit turns into a legal file.

The second outcome is bigger and slower. Researchers Charlie Trevor and Anthony Nyberg studied downsizing and turnover across roughly 200 organizations and found that cutting jobs pushed up voluntary turnover among the employees who stayed, sometimes enough to erase the savings the cuts were meant to produce. Their paper, in the Academy of Management Journal in 2008, also found the effect was weaker in organizations with stronger HR practices, including procedural fairness. People watch the process and decide whether it could happen to them unfairly.

A Leadership IQ survey of 4,172 employees at 318 companies that had recently cut staff found that 74% said their own productivity had declined, 77% saw more errors and 87% were less likely to recommend their employer. That survey was about layoffs, not a single performance termination, so do not stretch it too far. The useful part is a different finding from the same study: employees who rated their managers high on visibility, approachability and candour were 72 per cent less likely to report a drop in their productivity. The manager’s behaviour after the exit moved the number. That is something you control.

Before the meeting: settle these in writing

Nothing on this list should be decided in the room. If any item is still open the night before, the meeting is not ready.

• The decision is final and approved. HR (or whoever owns employment decisions in your company) has signed off. If you are still hoping the conversation will change your mind, you are not ready to hold it.
• The record supports it. Coaching notes, written expectations, the outcome of any performance improvement plan. If the person will be surprised, that is a problem with the months before this meeting, and it is worth talking to HR about before you proceed.
• The logistics are known. Final pay date and amount, how benefits end or continue (COBRA in the US), what happens to equipment, when system access is cut, and who handles each step.
• The severance terms are drafted, if there are any. More on this below, because the document has rules you need to understand.
• The room, the time and the second person are booked. A private room, not glass-walled. Early in the day and early in the week, so the person can call a benefits line, a spouse or a lawyer the same afternoon instead of sitting with it all weekend. A second person, usually HR, in the room or on the call.
• Your opening is written word for word. Two sentences. You will not read it like a script, but writing it forces you to find out whether you can actually say it plainly.
• The team message is drafted. You will need it within hours, and you will not write a good one in the state you are in after the meeting.

The most common gap I have seen is the last one. Running IT operations teams at a large telecom for two decades, I sat in on more exits than I would like, and the managers who handled the meeting itself well very often fumbled the next morning. They had prepared for one conversation when they actually had two.

The first thirty seconds

The person should know what is happening before you have finished your second sentence. Every second of warm-up is a second they spend dreading the thing you have not said yet.

A clear opening sounds like this:

“Thanks for coming in. I have a difficult decision to share. Based on the results of your performance plan, we have decided to end your employment, effective today.”

Then one factual reason, tied to the record: “The targets for client response time and error rate that we set in July were not met by the September review.” One reason. Not a recap of every incident.

An opening that fails sounds like this:

“So, we’ve been thinking a lot about how things have been going, and, you know, it just hasn’t really been working the way we’d hoped, so we think it might be best for everyone to explore some other options.”

That version feels kinder to the person saying it. It is harder on the person hearing it, because they have to decode it while their stomach drops, and words like “might” and “explore” plant the idea that the decision is still open. Read your written opening aloud before the meeting. If it takes longer than about 30 seconds, or contains “might,” “maybe,” “not a good fit” or “other options,” rewrite it.

Do not open with praise. Five minutes of compliments followed by a termination reads as a setup, and the person will replay it later looking for the moment you started lying to them.

Once you have said it, stop talking. Silence will feel enormous. Let it.

When they push back

The reaction is not yours to control. Your job is to stay steady, stay kind and not reopen the decision. A few reactions come up often enough to plan for.

“Is there anything I can do to change this?”

No, and say so gently and clearly: “I understand why you’re asking. The decision is final.” Anything softer, including “I’ll see what I can do,” is cruel, because it creates hope you will have to take away a second time.

Arguing the record

They may dispute the metrics or bring up a project that went well. Acknowledge it without debating: “I hear that you see it differently.” You are not there to win the argument. If they raise something genuinely new, such as a claim of discrimination or a safety complaint they say they reported, note it, do not argue it, and make sure HR follows up properly. That is exactly the kind of thing that should not get lost in a tense room.

“Can I resign instead?”

Some companies allow this; many have a policy. Do not improvise an answer, and never be the one to suggest it to make the meeting easier on you. In the US, a voluntary resignation can affect eligibility for unemployment benefits, so steering someone toward resigning can shift a real cost onto them. Know your company’s position before you walk in.

Tears, silence or anger

Tears and silence are normal; offer water, tissues and time. If anger escalates past what feels safe, end the meeting calmly: “I think we should pause here. HR will follow up with you today about next steps.” Never match their energy. This is also the reason the second person is in the room.

After the reaction settles, move to logistics and hand over a written summary. People in shock retain very little of what they hear in that room. The paper is what they will read that night.

A well-run meeting rarely needs more than 15 minutes. Longer usually means it has turned into a debate.

The severance agreement is not your script

If your company offers severance in exchange for a release of claims, you are handing over a legal document, and there are rules about it that a manager should at least know exist.

In the US, if the person is 40 or older and the release covers age discrimination claims, the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act sets minimum terms. The EEOC’s guidance explains that the employee must generally get at least 21 days to consider the agreement and 7 days to revoke it after signing, the agreement must advise them in writing to consult a lawyer, and the consideration period stretches to 45 days when the offer is part of a group termination. The same guidance makes clear that a release cannot stop someone from filing a charge with the EEOC.

What this means in the room: do not pressure anyone to sign on the spot, do not say “you need to sign this today,” and do not try to explain what the clauses mean. “HR will walk you through this, and you have time to review it, including with a lawyer” is the right line.

Confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses are a moving target. In 2023 the National Labor Relations Board ruled in McLaren Macomb that broad versions of those clauses in severance agreements for non-supervisory employees can violate federal labor law. The Board’s General Counsel withdrew the earlier guidance memo on that case in February 2025, though the decision itself stayed in force, and in August 2026 the current General Counsel asked the Board to overrule it outright. If your template agreement has not been reviewed since 2023, flag it to HR or counsel before you use it.

Outside the US, the rules are different and often stricter. In Canada, for example, notice and severance obligations come from provincial employment standards and common law, and a termination done casually can be expensive. None of this is legal advice; it is the reason the HR and legal sign-off sits at the top of the checklist.

The hour after, and the month after

Talk to the team the same day, ideally within a couple of hours, before the empty chair does the talking for you.

“I want you to hear this from me: [name] is no longer with the team as of today. I’m not going to share details, out of respect for them. What I do want to talk about is coverage, because some of you are going to pick up their work, and I want to get that right.”

Then actually get it right. Name who covers what, for how long, and what you are dropping or delaying to make room. The team’s first question is rarely “why?” It is “what does this mean for me?” Answer that one.

Do not criticise the person who left, even if the team was carrying them for months and is privately relieved. Teams usually know before you act, especially after a long stretch of poor performance, and acting fairly and finally can raise trust. Gloating, or letting others gloat, spends that trust immediately.

The month after is where the Leadership IQ finding pays off. Be more visible, not less. Hold your one-on-ones, especially with the person’s closest colleagues. Expect a question you cannot fully answer and give the honest version of the answer you can. If people start wondering whether they are next, that will surface as quieter meetings and fewer questions; a short, direct conversation about how performance is actually judged on your team does more than any reassurance email. The team culture you get after an exit is built in those few weeks.

One last check, a week later: ask yourself whether the person was surprised. If they were, the meeting was not the problem. The months of feedback before it were, and that is the part of this you can start fixing with everyone else on your team right now, through regular, specific feedback that makes a termination the end of a visible process instead of a shock.