Agnes Wachira explains why clear expectations, documented performance management and thoughtful communication are essential when navigating terminations and redundancies. She shares how HR leaders can balance organisational needs with employee dignity while maintaining trust and protecting the organisation’s reputation.
Agnes Wachira, senior human resources manager at CYBER RANGES, believes that letting someone go is one of the most consequential decisions a HR leader will ever make. According to her, it is unfortunately also one of the most frequently mishandled, not because organisations lack the will to do it well, but because they skip the steps that make the decision defensible, humane and clear.
Throughout her career, Agnes has managed employee terminations across multiple organisations and jurisdictions. Despite handling complex and often sensitive employment matters, she has never faced litigation arising from a termination. That, she says, is not luck, it is in consistently following due process.
“There is a right way to do it. When decisions are objective, well documented and clearly linked to the needs of the role and the business, employees are far more likely to understand the outcome, even when it is difficult,” she says.
Setting expectations
For Agnes, every performance-related exit begins long before the termination itself.
“Before a conversation about termination on performance grounds can even be considered, an employer must demonstrate that the employee understood the expectations from the very beginning, that the employee understood what success looked like, that performance goals were measurable, and most importantly that they were given a fair opportunity to improve. This includes placing them on a performance improvement plan where necessary, clearly outlining the required deliverables and establishing measurable outcomes,” she says.
That opportunity, she explains, should be structured rather than informal. If those steps were skipped or poorly executed, Agnes argues, the conversation about letting someone go becomes legally and reputationally fragile. The organisation is exposed because the groundwork was not laid.
When the separation decision results from a redundancy rather than a performance matter, the calculus shifts but the principle remains the same. Businesses have a responsibility to make decisions that ensure their long-term sustainability. Sometimes that means a role genuinely no longer exists.
“But before reaching that point, our responsibility is to explore every reasonable alternative. We first assess whether there is another role within the organisation where the employee's skills could add value. At the same time, we must respect the individual's career aspirations. Reassigning someone into a role they neither enjoy nor are suited for rarely benefits either party. If there is no suitable alternative, then separation becomes the responsible decision,” she says.
To her, the manner of separation matters as much as the decision itself. She describes the layoff conversation as one that must be candid, explaining the reasoning fully, tying it to the role and the business and supported by practical measures that acknowledge the human weight of what is happening.
For Agnes, supporting employees through redundancy should not end with communicating the decision. She believes organisations have a responsibility to help employees navigate the emotional and professional transition that follows.
Employees affected by redundancy, she says, should be offered access to counselling services to support their emotional wellbeing as they process the transition. Beyond that, organisations can make a meaningful difference by helping individuals take their next career step.
Beyond the exit
“In my experience, we have asked employees whether they would be comfortable sharing their updated CVs so that we could circulate them within our professional networks. It reassures them that they are not facing the transition alone and that there are people willing to support them. These may seem like small gestures, but they shift the tone of an exit from one that feels purely transactional to one that reflects a duty of care,” Agnes notes.
She is equally clear about the value of following due process.
“Due process does not only protect the employee; it protects the organisation as well. When exits are handled without proper documentation, transparency or timely conversations, organisations expose themselves to legal and reputational risks that can persist long after the individual has left the organisation. Following a fair, objective and well-documented process safeguards both the business and the integrity of the decisions it makes,” she adds.
The broader argument Agnes makes is that compassion and accountability are not in tension in a well-run HR function. They are both requirements, and neither excuses the absence of the other.
“A business that avoids making difficult decisions when performance or organisational needs require them is not protecting its people. Equally, a business that makes those decisions without fairness, honesty, empathy and due process is not protecting itself. Effective HR leadership requires balancing the needs of the business with the dignity of the individual,” Agnes notes.
"People rarely remember only the decision itself; they remember how they were treated. When organisations manage exits with integrity, transparency and genuine care, they protect far more than their legal position. They preserve trust, reinforce their values and demonstrate that respect for people does not end when employment does."
