Termination Documentation

Method

In 2012 we sent an inquiry letter to more than 100 companies in the Houston, Texas, area and an advertisement through local HR organizations, asking for the opportunity to collect data on termination documentation. We sought out HR professionals given their integral role in employee relations. The result was that we interviewed seven HR personnel at six companies, from various industries, in the Houston area between June and September 2012. The participants were HR generalists, managers, and directors. In 2013, we sent out an additional call to HR organizations in Texas and interviewed five more HR personnel at five companies.

Our data collection method was twofold in that we interviewed participants as well as collected workplace documents as they pertained to the termination process. Research participants were interviewed to understand their role in the textual production process of termination letters. Each interview lasted between 30 and 60 minutes and was conducted in the participants’ workplace, a mutually agreed on place, or online. Each interview began by soliciting the participant’s work history and educational background; the latter part of the interview consisted of open-ended questions that aimed to better understand the organization’s general termination process as well as each participant’s role in the said process. Interview questions were also designed to gain the research participant’s insight and opinions as they were described in their own language.Silverman (2006)referred to this as emotionalist interview data because “interviewees are viewed as experiencing subjects who actively construct their social worlds” and, therefore, the data provides “an authentic insight into people’s experiences” (p. 118). UsingKvale’s (1996)examples of interview questions as a guide,Table 1illustrates the types of interview questions and examples posed to the research participants. Examples were modified from those provided in the text to illustrate specific questions posed to the research participants.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Examples of Interview Questions.

Question type	Example
Introducing questions	Can you explain the termination process?
Follow-up questions	What is your role in composing the termination letter?
Probing questions	Can you describe your process for writing a termination letter?
Specifying questions	How do you go about writing a termination letter?
Direct questions	Do you find it difficult to write a termination letter?
Indirect questions	How do you conceptualize audience when writing a termination letter?

During our process of soliciting research participants, we asked potential participants to provide us with sample termination documentation. We purposely asked for termination documentation rather than limiting the scope to only termination letters so that we could analyze the various texts that may be embedded in the termination process. As such, the amount and scope of documents provided by each participant greatly varied. For example, one participant only provided an example of a benefits letter. Conversely, another HR professional provided us with a packet of materials that documented the entire termination process as it related to one specific employee.

As inStrauss (1987)andStrauss and Corbin (1990), a grounded theory approach was used to analyze the documents collected. Grounded theory is an iterative and cumulative process of analyzing and interpreting data by constantly comparing and contrasting as well as fracturing and repairing the data throughout the three primary coding procedures, which include open, axial, and selective coding. The progression of coding procedures results in the abstraction of data, which yields a substantive theory that explains how a particular social phenomenon occurs within a specific context.

The process of data analysis begins with open coding, which is the first step in conceptualizing the data. More specifically, the process begins by noting the constituent features of the data and grouping like data to create conceptual codes. Fracturing the data to develop conceptual codes can result in “dozens, even hundreds of conceptual labels” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 65). Therefore, it is necessary to then further abstract the data by developing categories. The process of developing categories begins by comparing and contrasting conceptual codes to interrogate the ways in which they do or do not relate to the same phenomena.

Strauss and Corbin (1990)summarized the axial coding process as “specifying a category (phenomenon) in terms of the conditions that give rise to it; the context in which it is embedded; the action/interactional strategies by which it is handled, managed, carried out; and the consequences of those strategies” (p. 97). In addition to the “hypothetical relating of subcategories to a category by means of denoting the nature of the relationships between them and the phenomenon” the axial coding process is further complicated by the need to operationalize three other distinct analytic steps simultaneously (p. 107). These steps include the verification of those hypotheses against actual data; the continued search for the properties of categories and subcategories, and the dimensional locations of data indicative of them; the beginning exploration of variation in phenomena, by comparing and contrasting each category and its subcategories for different patterns discovered by comparing dimensional locations of instances of data (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 107).

Selective coding is the final coding procedure for building a site-specific theory that depicts a rich and grounded representation of a contextualized social phenomenon. The primary objective of selective coding is “selecting the core category, systematically relating it to other categories, validating those relationships, and filling in categories that need further refinement and development” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 116).

Results

Interviewee A, an HR manager at the corporate headquarters of an oil company, had 22 years of experience in HR, and held a BA in education. In terms of documentation of employee problems, A had a four-step process of discussion, documentation of the problem, proposed results, and getting buy-in from the employee. As for firing, A opined that it was better to fire someone verbally to make the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) process easier as there would be less evidence. If there was a letter, A wrote it with outside counsel and the hiring/firing manager assisting. A had fired about 20 employees for performance-related issues but had handled hundreds of settlements. A did not find it hard to write the termination letter. He envisioned the audience of the letter as the EOC and lawyers.

A provided us with three sets of documents from the files of three different employees who held different positions within the company. The accounts payable clerk’s file only included a “Memo of Action-Termination of Employment” and separation letter consisting of an explanation of benefits. The file for the network analyst included a “Memorandum on Professional Behavior,” a memo about “Excessive Absenteeism,” a letter acknowledging the employee’s resignation that outlined the terms of said resignation, and an “Employee Termination-Forfeitures” memo. The set of documents from a financial analyst’s personnel file included the most documents from a 2-year period. These documents included two “Memorandum for Record-Professional Behavior” memos. The first memo was dated July 17, 2009, and the second memo was dated December 16, 2010. Additional documents provided included a “Performance Counseling Action Plan,” a letter to answer the “Development Requirements,” A’s discussion notes from a meeting to discuss the employee’s performance issues, a memo sent to the Texas WorkForce Commission informing the recipient that, per the request of the commission, he was forwarding the employee’s counseling history, and last, a “Employee Termination-Forfeitures” memo.

Interviewee B and Interviewee C were coworkers at the corporate headquarters of an oil company. Interviewee B, an HR generalist, held a BA in business management and an MBA, with 4 years of experience. C, an employee relations manager with 20 plus years of experience, held a BA in organizational and behavioral management.

For B and C, the termination process was one of investigation—talking to witnesses and reviewing past incidents. The investigation was summarized in a verbal meeting. If there was a termination letter, it was short and contained only basic information such as title and years employed, and state forms were filled out. There was a discipline form with a checkbox for termination, however. The employee did not have to sign or see the termination letter unless he or she requested to do so.

B and C provided three examples of completed discipline forms in which the level of disciplinary action being taken was termination. The form also included a section in which the manager/supervisor would indicate why the employee’s action(s) warranted the employee being terminated. In all three example forms provided, multiple reasons were identified for justifying the termination of the employee. Examples of unacceptable actions included the following:

The only section of the form that solicited a narrative and, thus, free form prose was the section titled “Describe the incident (facts only).” In addition to the three completed discipline forms, B and C also gave us their version of the “Explanation of Benefits” document that is provided to all terminated employees.

Interviewee D, the HR director for a manufacturing company with a BS in business administration, had 19 years of work experience. In terms of documentation, D emphasized that any termination letter was only a formality at his company, consisting of benefits and COBRA options only, and that it followed a template that predated D’s tenure. D did not write it—that was handled by an HR generalist and a manager—but rather D conducted the oral termination interview (under conditions that the employee’s manager felt comfortable with). D had handled five involuntary and nine voluntary terminations. D noted that the termination process, whether voluntary or involuntary, should be handled with “dignity and respect” and should never come as a surprise.

Interviewee E was an SHRM-certified HR manager at a law firm with 24 years of experience who had earned two associate’s degrees in liberal arts. E talked at length about the different scenarios that would result in the employee no longer working for the firm. These scenarios included reduction in force (RIF), voluntary resignation, and involuntary termination. To better explain each scenario, E provided documents respective to each situation. For instance, E provided us with three documents pertaining to RIF situations. Specifically, these documents included a “RIF Notification Meeting Script,” “RIF Meeting Questions & Answers,” “Escort Guidelines,” and “Do’s and Don’ts” lists. The latter two documents were provided to those who were facilitating and/or participating in the termination process.

When employees voluntarily resigned, they were given a completed “Employee Benefits & Miscellaneous Items” form. This form identifies accrued paid time-off days, health care coverage, flexible spending account plan, group life and long term disability coverage, and 401(k) savings and investment plan. We were also given a copy of the company’s termination policy that outlined the employee’s responsibilities when resigning.

E explained that involuntarily terminated employees are verbally notified, which is done using a script. The script clearly outlines the specific items for the HR professional to communicate to the employee being terminated and leaves little room for any subjectivity. SeeFigure 1for an excerpt of the termination notification script.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Verbal notification.

It is important to note that Workplace E provided us with multiple documents as they pertained to different types of terminations. However, only two of those documents are given to the terminated employees. The purpose of the two documents given to terminated employees is to explain their benefits.

Interviewee F was a regional director of HR for an insurance company, with 4 years on the job and an MBA and a master’s in HR. F stated that the termination process was one of progressive discipline, with a number of stages, including verbal warnings that had to be followed. The termination letter was very important to this process. It was written with consultation with attorneys and regulations and followed a template. F also stated that he or she had written seven to eight termination letters, with 20 to 30 terminated in the company as a whole each year. The letter itself was objective, unemotional, in the third person, and easy to write if the process was followed, as the employee should have known what was coming. Nevertheless, a wide variety of audiences were considered—chain of command, unemployment, outside attorneys, and a potential jury.

Workplace F shared two documents pertaining to its termination process. The handout “FOSA Document: Documenting Corrective Action” lists questions and prompts as they pertain to the different sections in a disciplinary notice: facts, objectives, solutions, and action. F also provided a “Sample Termination Document” that explicitly outlines the content and organization of Workplace F’s termination letters (seeTable 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Sample Termination Document Outline.

Section	Content
Facts	Chronological list of events
	Brief description of employee’s job
	Communication of performance expectations
	Dates of performance issues and interventions/corrective actions that were taken to address the performance issues
Objectives	State the objectives from the Employee Handbook of Policies and Procedures, Management Procedures, and/or departmental polices that apply to the circumstance
	Include the business reasons why it is important that these objectives be met consistently
	Cite reasons for termination per the “Your Job” section of theEmployee Handbook of Policies and Procedures
Action	Based on (Employee Name) (state the reason for termination), Company F is terminating (his/her) employment, effective immediately.

Interviewee G, an HR manager, had worked for his/her current employer, a manufacturing company, for 1.5 years, and held a BS in education. G opined that the termination letter was very important to the termination process. While G wrote the letter, the content was provided collaboratively by managers. G had written three termination letters. G found that the audience of employees had a very basic level of reading skill, so the letter had to be clear and straightforward.

The process of termination followed a three-level process of verbal correction, incident description, and employee acknowledgement, which was followed by another incident description, performance corrective. Then a full investigation, a statement from supervisor, and the termination letter followed.

G provided us with one employee’s complete disciplinary file that included 13 documents. A chronological list of these documents is presented inTable 3.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Inventory Workplace G Employee’s Disciplinary File.

Date	Document
June 1, 2011	“Performance Correction Notice”
January 2, 2012	“Job Safety Analysis (JSA) Worksheet”
August 30, 2012	“Performance Correction Notice”
September 10, 2012	Screenshot from video surveillance
September 10, 2012	Screenshot from video surveillance
September 13, 2012	Statement from superior
September 13, 2012	Statement from superior
September 13, 2012	Notice of Termination
September 13, 2012	“360° WalkAround: ‘Look’ Magnet Program”
Not dated	“Mobile Equipment 360° Program”
September 14, 2012	Statement from coworker
September 14, 2012	Statement from coworker
September 14, 2012	Statement from coworker

Interviewee H held a BS in HR and an MA in organizational development, as well as SPHR (senior professional in HR) certification. H had worked since 1996 in HR and several months at his/her current job at a web technologies company as an HR manager. Interviewee H saw the termination process as one of progressive discipline with managers and HR collaborating closely throughout on meetings and written documentation. Interviewee H had written at least 100 termination letters, including layoffs and reorganizations. While managers felt writing a termination letter was hard, H did not: H used a variety of strategies, including using third person instead of second person, writing “from the head,” and not writing the letter immediately to avoid emotion. The immediate audience of the letter was the manager and employee, but the final review was a court of law.

Interviewee H provided us with a blank “Employee Counseling Notice” form that is used to document the various types of notice that constitute the company’s progressive disciplinary approach because, as Interviewee H explained, “If it’s not documented, then it didn’t happen.” Specifically, the six different types of notice that are included on the form are verbal counseling, decision making leave, first level reminder, suspension, second level reminder, and termination. It is also worth noting that the reason for notice section only identified three reasons the employee would be disciplined for performance, behavior, and other. The details section of the form is comprised of four specific prompts that aim to contextualize the situation. In collaboration with a manager, Interviewee H completes the details section by completing these prompts:

The last part of the details section is provided for the employee to provide his/her own comments pertaining to the situation.

Interviewee I, a high school graduate with 30 hours of college in business administration, had more than 25 years of experience in HR and had been employed at I’s current place of work, an oil company, for 5 years as an HR manager. For I, the termination process was straightforward: one incident of wrongdoing that violates “well-known” company policy was grounds for termination by the immediate supervisor. I’s company did not currently give out termination letters; in the past, however, Interviewee I would collect information from the employee’s supervisor as well as a written statement from any witnesses.

As for writing termination letters, Interviewee I opined that “you want to paint a clear picture of what happened,” including a copy of the policy violated and signed statements. At the end of the letter, Interviewee I included a prominent “conclusion” that gave the reasons for termination. Interviewee I had written more than 100 termination letters; at first, the Texas Workforce Commission would call and clarify details in the letters, but currently not so often.

Interviewee J held a BS in labor relations, an MBA, and SPHR certification. J had worked in HR since 1988, and had worked 7 years at J’s current employer, a construction company, where J was the chief HR officer for more than 1,800 employees in seven states. Interviewee J discussed his organization’s progressive disciplinary approach and, in doing so, explained that documentation plays a critical part in said approach. Specifically, he/she asserted, much like Interviewee H, that “if it’s not written, then it didn’t happen.” Given his/her position as the chief HR officer, Interviewee J explained that he/she has little involvement in writing termination letters. However, Interviewee J informed us that the genre and content of the termination letter was dependent on the terminated employee’s status within the company. For example, employees who held entry-level positions received notice of their termination via a form. Management and professional staff received termination letters that appropriated a conversational tone and created a narrative of pertinent events. Specifically, the body of the letter clearly identified the infractions committed and provided evidence of said infractions. Conversely, letters written to executive leadership were described as “cut and dry” and “very technical” given that the notice was a function of the employment contract.

Interviewee K was a high school graduate with 2 years of college and banking school. K had worked since 2003 in HR at K’s current employer, a wildlife center, and held the title of Director of HR. For K, the termination process consisted of two parts: first a verbal or written warning, then a termination. K stated that the employee “should not be surprised” when termination comes, and that K worked with attorneys throughout the process so as to make the termination “court-ready”—there were no “off-the-cuff” firings. The termination letter itself, written by K, came from a template approved by the executive director and attorneys.

K approached writing the termination letter by first gathering notes about the employee. K stated that the letter is “never easy to write” and that the audience of the letter was the employee. The letter needed to be compassionate but factual, “how I would like to be treated,” but with no apologies. Employees tended to be angry and the termination was a difficult process. K had written approximately 30 letters and opined that K had gotten better at it over time, becoming less emphatic and more holistic. K empathized with most terminated employees, saying that they were “square pegs in round holes,” but had little empathy for embezzlers at K’s nonprofit company. Interviewee K provided us with six examples of termination letters written between August 2005 and July 2012. Reasons for termination ranged from RIF to an employee refusing to undergo drug and alcohol testing after arriving to work, after lunch, under the influence, misuse and abuse of the company credit card, and insulting clients.

Interviewee L held a bachelor’s degree in business management (HR track), and had been in HR for 15 years at public accounting firms. L had been in his or her current position of director of HR at the financial planning company for less than a year, where L was a “one-person-show” generalist. They had written “too many to count” termination letters over the years. The letter, which L only wrote, was very limited in scope, containing only when the notice was given, the last day of work, and any payout information. Too much detail or vague letters, opined L, “can lead to misinterpretation.” L sometimes researched appropriate language to use with the SHRM website. L had conflicting advice from legal counsel over time on whether or not to use letters. In the past L had been advised to always include one, but L’s current legal advisor suggested to not provide them at all; if a summary of a discussion needs to be included, it should be kept brief.

Discussion

Taken together, our analysis of the interview and document data provided a holistic view of the termination process. We found that each workplace engaged in the same basic process, but the ways in which the steps in the process were carried out were context dependent. More specifically, the termination process entailed four different stages: infraction, investigation, intervention, and termination. However, this was not always a linear process. For example, if the infraction committed by the employee was particularly egregious, then the employer would not further investigate the incident or engage in any intervention strategies, but proceeded directly to termination. While we conceived of this taxonomy halfway through our interviews, it held up throughout all 11 workplaces.

Speaking to the some of the specific ways in which in the termination process was context dependent are some of the constituent features of writing as a social process. Moreover, our findings of how the concepts of audience, agency, and collaboration were conceptualized and manifested in our data helps to provide a more robust representation of how the taxonomy was operationalized in each workplace. What follows is a more thorough discussion of the taxonomy we constructed as well as our analysis of how the concepts of audience, agency, and collaboration are embedded in the termination process.

Conclusion

While there is no set process that all of the companies followed for terminations, the four-step process—infraction, investigation, intervention, and termination—that we have outlined here can be used to describe what is going on in these documents, and, we suspect, in other termination documentation that is equally context dependent.

Furthermore, we would like to reiterate three key findings. The first is that what would usually be considered the secondary audience—legal, managers, and so on—is in fact the primary audience, rather than the terminated employee. The overriding concern for those we interviewed was not for the employee’s reaction, but for these other stakeholders. The second finding pertains to agency, which greatly varied between companies in regard to HR personnel and writing. Some stood behind institutional language, while others inserted themselves into the documents. There seems to be enough institutional leeway for writers to do either. Third, collaboration appeared to be an essential activity that occurred throughout the entire termination process.

Given the different responsibilities that our research participants assume in their respective HR departments and the varied ways in which each workplace operationalized the termination process, it was impossible to collect termination documents that could be compared easily. The categories and subcategories we identified in our representation of the termination process are only reflective of the research sites included in our study. As such, we are not suggesting that our findings are indicative of the process used in all workplaces. However, we do suggest that the four-step process that we have outlined here would be a useful theoretical teaching tool in technical communication and HR curriculums. Of our interviewees, none stated that they had been taught how to write termination letters, even though many had extensive HR training and certifications. They seem to have picked up their strengths in writing termination documentation through hard-won experience and occasional templates. By reporting these findings, we would like to partially lessen what Interviewee K called a “huge learning curve” involved in termination documentation.

Much future research can be done in this area. We took a holistic approach to the entire process, but other approaches could be fruitful. For example, a critical discourse approach to the language in the documents could be done, or a longitudinal study. Furthermore, while our study is descriptive rather than normative, we would suggest that future studies explore ethical responsibility in HR in regard to terminations, as in the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and HR. How termination documentation is generated is extremely relevant for the employee-employer relationship and the ethical quandaries inherently therein.

The major limitation of our study and, we fear, of other future studies in this area is the limited sample size due to the amount of companies declining to take part. Still, the lack of existing literature on the topic justifies, we believe, this preliminary exploration which shows that termination documentation is context dependent.