MANY employers struggle over whether or not to terminate employees who have proven themselves liabilities rather than assets. This struggle is perhaps linked to a number of factors, including the size of the talent pool; concern for the individual's well-being; and the reputation a leader has when they are forced to sever ties with employees.

Sometimes you question where you will find a talented employee to replace the one being released. Is the replacement going to be any better? How do you take bread out of that person's mouth, and leave their families in the lurch, by removing the opportunity to earn an income from someone who just might be the sole provider? Will the person who has to say to the employee: "Your services are no longer required" be viewed as a ruthless leader, or a weak, incompetent manager who feels threatened by the employee and has deficiency in talent management skills.

The result, then, is a workplace filled with individuals who are not performing near standard - and should have been released a long time ago. If you work in the civil service, or in many Bahamian private companies, much of what we are sharing resonates with you.

We understand that the business of termination goes both ways. Employees FIRE their employers all the time. They walk off the job, tender their letters of resignation or, in a worst case scenario, they stay on the job physically but check out mentally.

While there are some companies who have no issues terminating failing employees, we have seemingly embraced a culture where releasing unproductive employees is unpopular. In fact, there is a popular view that employees who are released for insubordination, lack of productivity, failing work ethics or any other major infraction are unfairly dismissed, as there are seldom any established standards or clear consequences presented to these wayward workers for blatant disregard of the standards.

Economists tell us that frictional unemployment is good for the economy. It celebrates the individual who leaves a job that is not a good fit for their passion and skills. It praises the company who says to an employee that your time in this company has come to an end for these VALID reasons.

Releasing an employee who is not thriving allows them to relocate to a company where they are better suited. This is nature's lesson to us. You trim the struggling tree to ensure its health, you sever the infected limb to save the body, and you remove and discard the rotten apple from the bag to rescue the bunch. Our conversation today, as uncomfortable as it may be to many, serves to encourage the business community to secure the health of their companies and terminate responsibly. Here are some basic tips:

• Ensure that the circumstances surrounding the termination of the employee fall within the confines of the labour laws of the Bahamas

• Ensure that the employee leaves with an exit survey or some form of dialogue; a two-way conversation communicating displeasures on both ends

• Ensure that every feasible company resource has been exhausted in training, motivating, coaching and developing the team member before the decision to terminate is made

• Ensure that you have been able to demonstrate measurably the inefficiencies and incompetence of the employee. These decisions cannot, and should not, be made subjectively

• Get the POLITRICKS, bias and "hear say" out of the equation. Personality must not be the driving force behind these critical decisions. We are all different with different views, but amid our differences we can learn to work together in harmony. That is what makes us a civil, intelligent and progressive society.

• NB: Ian R Ferguson is a talent management and organisational development consultant, having completed graduate studies with regional and international universities. He has served organsations, both locally and globally, providing relevant solutions to their business growth and development issues. He may be contacted at iferguson@bahamas.com.