A cool head for a good exit

If all's fair in love and war, the same might be said for an employee trying to negotiate a fair exit from a company. There are many reasons for employees to 'forward-manage' this process; one is the arrival of a new CEO who wants to place their 'own people' in pivotal roles. Suddenly responsibilities change, new middle managers appear and employees find themselves doing the same job but with less status. Alternatively, an employer may genuinely need to restructure a business, resulting in redundancies, or the business may be in trouble and the employee able to see the writing on the wall.

Marie Wilson, professor of management for the University of Auckland, says if employees are adversely affected by management changes, are unhappy in their work, or notice business falling off and budgets being squeezed, it's probably time to consider how to negotiate a graceful exit and set up alternative employment.

"Psychologically, the worst time for employees to make decisions is the day they discover bad [employment] news," says Wilson.

Wilson says being moved sideways by a new CEO is common, but the unpleasant effects of this can be offset by the employee taking charge of the situation.

"You can say point blank: 'look, if you are bringing in someone else, do you really need me? If you don't, shouldn't we be discussing a fair exit package?' But you need to do it in the nicest possible way - New Zealand is a small employment market," says Wilson.

Don Mackinnon, employment lawyer for Mackinnon and Associates, says it's quite common for existing employees to lose career status as the result of a new CEO wanting 'new blood' and appointed, rather than inherited, key roles. However, Mackinnon says such changes are not necessarily unlawful - another reason for existing employees to keep their cool.

"You can't be moved from second in command in a company to the fourth or fifth level of an organisation because that would be [unlawful] but if you were one of three people reporting to the CEO, the CEO can put one of the others [or someone else] in charge," says Mackinnon.

As a general rule, if a job changes substantially, it can be deemed by an employment court to be beyond normal management prerogative and the affected employee will benefit from seeking legal advice, says Mackinnon. If not, it may be better for the employee's personal needs and circumstances to adapt to the changes and stay where they are.

Mackinnon says to avoid exit surprises, employees should be constantly self-evaluating their own performance and job satisfaction along with market changes and whether they are valued by their employers. If the result of that evaluation makes exit inevitable, the smart thing to do is get out into the market before quitting and without relying on a big redundancy cheque.

"Too many individuals walk out the door in a huff and then find they're unemployed and looking. That backfires even further if they have to use their last employer as a referee. It is vastly easier for people to find a new job whilst still employed," says Mackinnon.

Nor is it a good idea for an employee who is being shown the door, however gently, to suddenly lift their performance to convince an employer how indispensable they are at the last minute.

"Some people try to establish a reciprocal relationship with their employer along the lines of 'I'm doing so much for you, you need to keep me' but this approach rarely works; employers call it 'impression management'," says Wilson. However, she says it's okay to give feedback during the redundancy process and suggest alternatives to redundancy - this is an opportunity employers are required to provide by law.

The key to an employee leaving on their own terms is to remain professional and polite no matter how unfairly the employee feels they have been treated, agree Mackinnon and Wilson. Stewing inwardly and causing trouble can negatively affect an employee's 'personal employment brand' - the market perception of the employee's loyalty and value and the validity of the employer references they have - and make it harder for them to develop their career in the future.

"If someone quits [in disgust] or just stops performing, the employer can then say they were justified in wanting that employee to leave," says Wilson.

Mackinnon says while an honest discussion with an employer is the best way to secure a dignified exit employees also need to be sure it's necessary.

"You'd only go to that point if you knew the bomb was about to delivered and you didn't have another job lined up," says Mackinnon.

However, if that's the case he says employees need to negotiate a deal that will provide enough time to find another job or one that allows them to support incoming management for a specified period of time. Examples include an agreed period of paid notice rather than the need to leave at once or, if the employee actually wants to short circuit the leaving process, a negotiated exit process that remains dignified and isn't rushed for either side. In other words, it shouldn't only be about what the employee wants.

While some employers have a poor attitude and little or no interest in mutually beneficial exit negotiations, Mackinnon says in the case of redundancies, employers often don't know which employees will be made redundant, how or when, because of the consultation and feedback process required by law. Employers may also find a single role or department inefficient and decide on genuine restructure and try to figure out redundancies from there. Either way, individual employees have the right to argue why their job is one that shouldn't be made redundant, but fighting aggressively for a big redundancy cheque and speaking out against an employer doesn't do anyone any favours.

"Too many employees burn their bridges with past [and future] employers by expecting too much money on exit. Even potential redundancy victims who say 'look I know what's going on here; let's do a deal' should first get written job references and secure a commitment from the employer to back these up when checked," says Mackinnon.

Counting to ten - or perhaps one thousand - can reap positive rewards for employees who want to exit an organisation on their terms. In the past 12 months, both Prime Television and Air New Zealand had staff 'blow up' in anger or resign in protest at the prospect of redundancy. However one Air New Zealand engineer who negotiated politely has remained employed though he expected to be made redundant. While the reasons for the continuation of his job weren't revealed, the engineer feels his positive attitude in an employment crisis probably helped. Similarly, a former Prime Television employee who remained polite in dealings with both Prime Television and new owner Sky Television eventually received both a redundancy package from Prime and a new employment contract with Sky Television - a rare redundancy result Mackinnon calls "getting the money and the bag".

Wilson says negotiating a fair exit from an organisation can be positive and exhilarating for employees and it can be helpful for people to approach it that way, whatever their reasons for leaving.

"When people know they are going to leave they are often more courageous and effective in their jobs and it's possible to really enjoy yourself on the way out," says Wilson.