Where we are
Before anything else, two boundaries. This session is not legal advice - employment law is local, fact-specific and changes, and any real case needs your HR partner and, where relevant, counsel involved from the start rather than after you have said something. And this is not the session for a case you have not diagnosed: if you have arrived here without doing b6, go back, because a sizeable proportion of exits are context or fit cases that could have been solved by changing the role. What follows assumes the honest work has been done and the conclusion still stands. The framing that makes this humane: you are not ending a person, you are ending a mismatch - and how you do it is the last and most-watched thing you will teach your team about what this organisation is.
The floor, and where jurisdictions diverge 7 min live
Wherever you are, the same four things make a performance exit defensible and humane. What differs is how formal the steps must be and what happens if you skip them.
LiveThe surprise test3 min▶
Before anything formal, ask one question: would this person be surprised? If the answer is yes, stop - because a surprised exit fails every version of the floor above at once. No real chance to act, no evidence they knew about, and a process that started at the end.
- A surprised person cannot have been given a chance, which is the element every jurisdiction cares about most.
- It is also the tell that you avoided the earlier conversation - which means the honest first step now is that conversation, not this one.
- And the team will be surprised too, which is where the damage to everyone else comes from.
The only clean exceptions are genuine misconduct, which is a different procedure entirely and not covered here, and a role genuinely disappearing, which is redundancy and also a different procedure with its own rules.
The exit that had to be paused. A Cartwheel manager brought a case to HR ready to proceed. The HR partner asked one question - has she been told, in writing, that her role is at risk? - and the answer was no: there had been "several chats". The process was paused for eight weeks to do properly what should have happened months earlier. It was inconvenient and it was correct, and it is the reason a consistency check before exits is the cheapest control any organisation can add.
Short, clear, and not a debate 5 min live
The exit conversation is the one place where brevity is kindness. It should be short, unambiguous, and not a negotiation - the decision is made, and pretending otherwise so it feels softer is cruel, because it invites the person to argue for something they cannot win.
LiveThe team the next morning3 min▶
This is the part managers have no plan for, and it is where most of the lasting effect lands. Your team will find out, will not be told why - correctly, because it is confidential - and will fill the gap themselves.
- Say something, promptly and briefly. "X has left the business. I am not going to discuss the reasons, because that is private, and I would want the same for any of you. Here is what happens with the work." Silence is read as either shame or indifference.
- Do not hint. Any detail you leak becomes the story, and everyone updates their model of you: this is a manager who discusses people.
- Address the fear directly if it is in the room. "If any of you are wondering whether you should be worried - if I had a concern about your work, you would have heard it from me directly and long before anything like this."
- Redistribute the work deliberately and visibly, and check the workload again in two weeks. Quietly absorbed extra work is the second most common source of resentment after the secrecy.
- Expect grief, including from people who found them difficult. Let it exist; do not manage it away.
Self-studyWhat a well-handled exit teaches, and your own conduct after2 min read▶
Two things worth being deliberate about once it is done:
- What the team concludes. Handled well - no surprise, dignity, no gossip, work redistributed thoughtfully - they conclude the standard is real and that they would be treated fairly. Handled badly, they conclude nobody is safe and that performance is not what determines outcomes, and your best people act on that first because they have options.
- How you talk about the person afterwards, forever. The temptation to explain yourself, especially to peers, is strong and should be resisted completely. "It did not work out and I am not going to go into it" is the whole script, permanently. People remember how you spoke about someone who was not there to answer, and they draw the obvious inference about what you will say about them.
Then do the honest review: what did you miss, how early was it visible, and what would have caught it? That question is what turns one exit into a better team rather than into a habit.
Prepare one properly ★ 12 min · everyone tries
Run the preparation checklist on the Cartwheel case that genuinely reached this point - and notice how much of it is verification rather than drafting.
The surprise test. Would they be surprised? If yes, stop and go back to b8's conversation instead.
The diagnosis check. Is this fit, or is it context wearing fit's clothes? If the role changed under them, the honest route may be a different role rather than an exit.
The consistency check. How was a comparable case handled? Get someone outside your reporting line to confirm.
The paperwork check. Is there dated evidence predating the decision? Was the concern put in writing at the time?
Then, with HR: the process for your jurisdiction, the facts you must be able to state, and the script for the first sentence.
| Check | Cartwheel case | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Surprise test | Concern raised month 2, in writing month 3, plan month 5 | Pass - no surprise |
| Diagnosis | Skill gap, taught properly for eight weeks, did not close | Pass - not context, and teaching was genuinely provided |
| Consistency | Two comparable cases: one recovered, one exited on the same timeline | Pass - same bar, and the recovery proves the bar is achievable |
| Evidence | Dated examples from before the plan, weekly notes during it | Pass |
| Redeployment | One internal role considered; genuinely not a match | Pass - considered and recorded, not skipped |
| Delivery | Tuesday morning, private room, HR present, written summary same day | Ready |
Script the team conversation ★ 8 min · do your own
Write what you will say to the team, in four sentences, before you need it. Managers improvise this part and it is the part with the widest audience.
Sentence one: the fact. Short, no euphemism, no "decided to pursue other opportunities" if that is not what happened.
Sentence two: the boundary, with the reason for it. "I will not discuss why, and I would protect any of you the same way."
Sentence three: the work. What happens now, who covers what, and that you will review it.
Sentence four: the reassurance, if it is honestly true. That concerns come from you directly and early.
Then plan the follow-up: individual check-ins for anyone close to them, and a workload review in two weeks.
The two exits, six months apart. Cartwheel handled two performance exits in the same year. The first was a surprise to everyone including the person, discussed openly by the manager afterwards, and the work silently absorbed by whoever noticed. Two strong people on that team resigned within four months. The second followed the checklist above: no surprise, four sentences to the team, work redistributed in a named plan, and the manager saying nothing about the reasons ever. Nobody left, and one person told the manager privately that it had been handled well. Same organisation, same policy, same type of decision - and the difference lived entirely in the process and the mouth of one manager.
Try it yourself - this week ◐ 30-45 min total
- Run the surprise test on any case heading this way. If they would be surprised, have the earlier conversation instead - this week.
- Write your four sentences for the team now, before you ever need them.
- Find out what your jurisdiction and your organisation actually require, from your HR partner, before you are in a live case.
- Check whether any concern you are holding has ever been put in writing at the time. Verbal chats do not count as notice.
- For any case at this stage, get an outside-the-line consistency check on how comparable cases were handled.
- Decide now what you will say when a peer asks you why someone left. Rehearse "it did not work out and I am not going to go into it".
Sources covered (cited)
Taught from published employment-practice guidance. This session covers:
Three questions before you go 🎯 ◐ 90 seconds
1 · The person would be surprised by this exit. What does that tell you?
Surprise is also the tell that you avoided the earlier conversation, so the honest next step is that conversation, not this one. And the team will be surprised too, which is where the damage to everyone else comes from.
2 · Why is brevity kindness in the exit conversation itself?
Decision in the first sentence, reason once, the practical facts, then their questions. Never soften it into ambiguity, never list every stored-up fault, and never discuss it with the team.
3 · What should you say to the team the next morning?
Silence gets read as shame or indifference, and any leaked detail becomes the story and tells everyone you discuss people. Redistribute the work visibly and review the load in two weeks - quietly absorbed extra work is the second biggest source of resentment after the secrecy.