What Organizations Can Learn From Lisa LaFlamme

The Lisa LaFlamme termination experience from CTV News (Bell Media) is an unfortunate example of an organization’s blindness to the potential impact of a bad ‘business decision’.

It perfectly shows what not to do and will be a case studied for years to come. The President and CEO, Mirko Bibic of BCE Inc. & Bell Canada, personally assured the public of his satisfaction that a link between Lisa’s termination and her hair or age “is not the case.”  He wanted us to hear it from him.  Here’s a thought on that: The fact that her termination happened as it did on your watch does not endear you to the general public. Her public. And, the general public does not have to believe you. Lisa has the public trust on this one. 

This article is not about why she was or was not let go. This happens to employees all the time. The sudden and unexplained ending of a career. The ‘don’t let the door hit you on your way out’ ending for some who, like Lisa, might have spent a lifetime with one organization. Departures must be conducted in a respectful way that honours the employee’s contribution regardless of their tenure.   Most employees want to do a good job. They go to work every day with the intention of doing what is required of them. Yes sure, a minority don’t, but there’s an appropriate way to manage that.  A subject for another time. 

This episode provides an opportunity to really think about how employee exits should be handled. The human element. The professionalism and humanity required. Lisa was treated in an unforgiveable way. Her words provide the opportunity to examine what happens to those on the receiving end of such news. Her words should be listened to carefully so as to invite a better way.  

Let’s look at how she started.  “With a range of emotion, I am sharing with you some information about me and my career with CTV News.”  Shock and sadness are two of the emotions Lisa names. There are many more from anger, disbelief, horror, fear, rage, shame and the list goes on.  She was “blindsided.” For most, news of your job ending delivered in that way, when you don’t see it coming, can be devastating.  The shock is so great for some, they cannot even figure out how to get themselves home.  Then, there’s telling family and friends which amounts to living the incredulity of it all over again from their perspectives.

(For those working in a toxic work environment, relief might quickly follow the shock but that too is a conversation for another time.)

She was blindsided by the business decision that ended her long career with CTV News. ‘Business decision’ can be code for : don’t like you; don’t trust you; you talk too much; you don’t talk enough; don’t like the way you do things; you challenge me; your team doesn’t trust you; you’ve disagreed with me once too often; you are smarter than me and I feel stupid when I am around you; you have too much power and influence; you are not doing what I need you to do but I am not prepared to have the conversation or help you improve your performance; or, a myriad of other reasons that may or may not be personal.  And yes, it is personal to the one receiving the news. At the root of some of these business decisions is a kind of cognitive myopia and frequency illusion. You see what you want to see and limit your seeing to that. Rather than talk about the real issue if there is one and what might need to shift, the organization makes the ‘business decision’. Sometimes there will be a change to the organizational chart to legitimize it. Other times not. 

Lisa wanted to share the message with the pubic she served, herself. Not a carefully-crafted , damage control missive that company media relations people would help write. Not one that would have to be approved.  She wanted to share the news of her career ending on her terms. She wanted to tell the public that Bell Media was “ending her contract, bringing to a sudden close my long career with CTV News’’ and quite frankly that she was “blindsided,” and is still “shocked and saddened.” She wanted people to know “what the last 35 years have meant to me.” This took guts, and integrity. “While it is crushing to be leaving CTV News in a manner that is not my choice, it has been the greatest honour of my life reporting to you and I thank you for always being there.” She managed her message on her terms. She had the means, platform and the audience to do that. Most employees don’t get that opportunity. Some are exited right out the door immediately upon getting the news themselves, especially if they hold a position of trust.  Executives, lawyers and accountants worry that left to one’s own devices, the departee might in some way sabotage the organization or its reputation. 

Bell Media asked Lisa to keep the news from her colleagues and the public until the specifics of her contract could be resolved. Here’s one reason why this is problematic. Close colleagues sometimes know more about each other than what can be known inside other close relationships. Depending on the type of work and the confidentiality required, some employees cannot even talk to their families about the things that keep them up at night.  When colleagues work well together, they are in tune with the energy and emotion of the other. They can be a significant support to one another in the workplace. These are relationships of honesty and trust. Lisa said, “I guess this is my sign off, so I want to express my deepest gratitude to all of you, to my incredible colleagues for their unwavering support.” Asking employees to keep something like this confidential from their work mates is asking them to dishonour a bond and trust at a time when they need support the most.  It’s not fair, lacks integrity and compassion, and fails to display the necessary care for another human being.  

Lisa had, as it seems, an opportunity to influence some of the specifics of her exit – “confidential until the specifics of my departure could be resolved.” Not everyone gets this opportunity. For those who think ahead and negotiate severance clauses into their hiring contract, the end might be simple. For others, it often follows exactly the letter of the employment law. Employees receive a letter with the terms and conditions of the severance. Some are let go without a recommendation that would support their ability to gain future employment. If they think about it, they might be able to negotiate the reference as a part of the deal. But many are reeling because they don’t know why they’ve been let go and they certainly don’t know what’s next. The trauma of the moment overtakes and their nervous system has moved full-on into survival mode. We know the ability to think rationally and function effectively is compromised when our executive functioning goes offline during an emotional hijacking. And that is what often happens. 

“At 58, I still thought I would have a lot more time to tell the stories that impact our daily lives. Instead, I leave CTV humbled by the people who put their faith in me to tell their story.” Lisa gave her heart and soul to her job as a reporter and anchor. So many employees do. To be ousted in a manner not of their choosing can be, as she says, ‘” crushing.”  Even employees with a track record of success are not immune. Ask Lisa. The shock, sadness, and finality of it can be unbearable. They are forever haunted by what they do not know – specifically the answer to ‘Why?”.  This leaves them at a loss about what they need to do differently should they choose to re-enter the workforce. It can be haunting and daunting. 

And then, there are the survivors. The literature is rife with studies of survivor syndrome – the disrupted psychological, physical, and emotional responses that occur with colleagues left behind. For some it is extremely difficult to manage.  And as far as the organization goes, the risk to the culture and trust can take years to rebuild and heal. It’s not uncommon for the fear nested inside these stories to live on long after all of the people involved are gone. In Lisa’s case, her leaving prompted a workplace investigation.  Employees will wonder:  if it happened to her, then it can happen to me; when will it be my turn; maybe if I keep my head down I won’t get noticed; I just can’t trust anyone anymore.  The negative effects on productivity and positivity cannot be overstated. 

The only people that really know what happened in Lisa’s career-ending ‘business decision’ are the people directly involved. And they are not about to tell the whole story. Organizations shy away from being fully truthful for fear of being sued or harmed in some other way. If it was truly necessary to part company with Lisa, then CTV (Bell media) got it wrong. Both the decision and the process of executing it. Horribly wrong. 

So, if you find yourself in the place of making a business decision, before you help the employee out the door, here are a few important questions to ponder first. 

1.     Has there been an honest conversation with the employee about what is needed or what might need to shift? Are performance expectations clear and conversations about progress held on a regular basis in an open and honest way? 

2.     Is it really necessary to sever this relationship? What is lost? What is gained? What’s the risk? 

To the senior executives who are a party to the decisions:

3.     What have you done by way of culture and policy to ensure that such a business decision is not only necessary but morally appropriate?  

4.     How will you assess whether the leader recommending the termination really has an objective handle on what is happening in the workplace they oversee? Have you ensured this isn’t just a story of ego butting up against competence or the illusion of only seeing what you want to see? 

5.     How do you understand the overall impact internally and externally?  How prepared are you for the unintended impact to your reputation or your bottom line? 

6.     What will this decision say about what your organization stands for?

If it is necessary to make a ‘business decision’ then:

7.     How have you provided for the psychological safety for the one leaving?  

8.     How have you provided for the future employability of the one leaving? What are you prepared to offer in a reference?  How might you ensure the departing employee knows exactly what that reference will say and what a reference letter will (and will not) contain? 

9.     How have you provided for the impact on those left behind? 

10.   What can you say in truth and honesty to remaining employees that honours the work of the departing employee? 

11.   What supports will you have in place during the immediate aftermath of sharing the separation message? 

To the employees made ‘former’ by the ‘business decision’: 

12.   How might you advocate for the time needed to process this decision and ensure you receive all you are entitled to?

13.   How might you influence the communication and messaging so it contains what you want it to say?

14.   How might you ensure access to mental, legal, financial and re-employment advice and services should they be needed? 

And there are more. Many more questions to think about. How about we start with these?

I guess this was Lisa’s “sign off.” When necessary, the knowledge to let someone go in a way that is fair and appropriate is available.  Apparently, the character and will to do so are harder to come by.  This was reprehensible.  All we can hope for is that it provides an opportunity for organizations and those in positions of power to think about the human element – the people on the receiving end. They are more than an asset, a contract or an employee number.