Skip to main content
Steady at the Top
← All articles

Should you reduce an executive’s role instead of firing them?

Reduce an executive’s role only when a genuine business need remains and the revised job can be made workable. Compare that option with an exit honestly, using role requirements and informed discussion. Employment counsel should review terms and consequences before any proposal is made.

Role conflict is tension arising when the expectations attached to a role cannot all be met together. The APA’s 2018 role-conflict entry defines that incompatibility. A narrower title will not resolve it if the executive must both defer to a successor and retain the successor’s authority. Role ambiguity means unclear expectations; conflict can persist even when each competing instruction is perfectly clear.

Test the supposedly kinder alternative

Composite scenario, not a client case: You tell someone at home that you have found a kinder alternative to dismissal. The proposed smaller role has no clear outcomes and reports through the executive’s former deputy. You have solved the difficulty of saying goodbye without yet designing a job the company needs.

Before presenting the smaller role, describe it without the executive’s name. State the work the business would commission, the decisions it requires and the person who would need its output. If the description contains only relationship preservation or keeping experience available, continue designing it. Do not ask the individual to accept a proposal whose organizational purpose you cannot yet explain to their future manager.

Judge the proposal separately from the manner of offering it

Colquitt’s 2001 justice study distinguishes outcomes, procedures, interpersonal treatment and explanations: study of organizational justice. For a reduced role, examine the substance of the proposal and the process for considering it as separate questions. A respectful conversation cannot establish that the work is viable. An apparently useful job does not remove the need for a candid account of what authority would change.

Use industrial/organizational psychology, the psychology of work and organizations, to inspect the revised job and its interfaces. The viable-role comparison is a proposed advisory exercise, not a measure of whether a demotion is fair or legally available. Its purpose is to determine whether you have an operating alternative worth taking through the qualified employment review, rather than a title designed to delay departure.

Compare a real job with an exit, not with a harder conversation

The decision is whether there is a viable role, not whether a smaller title can postpone an exit. Evaluate the organizational requirement separately from your wish to preserve the relationship.

Prepare a role specification and a separate account of the exit alternative. Do not bias the comparison by describing the redesign in hopeful language while describing departure only through its discomfort. Identify the cost, authority and operating need of the proposed role. Ask whether a new hire would be considered for that same work. Use the answer to challenge an honorary position with no deliverable.

Distinguish a capability the executive has demonstrated from a function you hope they would enjoy after losing responsibility. Review relevant work, not loyalty alone. If the proposed job requires coordination with a former deputy, have the future manager explain the decision boundary. A private assurance that everyone will work it out is not a usable role design for either person.

Use the viable-role redesign comparison

  1. Establish the actual business need. Describe a deliverable that would be needed without this executive. Identify its internal customer, required authority and reporting owner. Ask what would happen if nobody performed it. Distinguish continuing specialist work from a collection of leftovers after responsibilities move elsewhere. If the business cannot explain a useful output, stop refining the title and reconsider whether the proposal is an operating role at all.

  2. Assess fit for that work. Compare the revised requirements with evidence of the executive’s relevant capability. A strong history in one function does not answer every requirement in a newly invented job. Identify what the role would no longer include and what new obligations it adds. Ask whether the proposed manager can assess that work. Keep personal loyalty visible as a relationship consideration without allowing it to substitute for the evidence needed to staff the role.

  3. Test working relationships. Use an example decision to examine the interface between the reduced role and the successor. State who recommends, who decides and who resolves disagreement. Ask both proposed participants where that boundary would be difficult to maintain. Consider how colleagues will learn the change. Do not rely on the executive privately retaining authority to make a nominally subordinate role attractive; that would leave the successor with a different job from the one announced.

  4. Review the proposal with advisers. Take the defined role and the exit alternative to employment counsel and qualified people leaders. Ask which terms and process require resolution before a proposal can be discussed. Confirm who speaks for the organization. Prepare an individual explanation that describes the reviewed options without presenting acceptance as inevitable. Keep unanswered legal or contractual questions with the adviser responsible for them instead of trying to settle them through persuasive wording.

  5. Choose and follow through. If a viable role is appropriately agreed, communicate its actual authority and establish a review of its work. Record the handoff from the former remit. If the comparison shows only a holding position, address the employment decision candidly through the authorized process. Do not retain an ambiguous arrangement merely to avoid another meeting. Its continued existence should have an operating justification that remains understandable to the people who must work with it.

If responsibilities must be covered while options are reviewed, make that temporary arrangement explicit. Tell the authorized participants who can act during the review and which decisions remain open. Avoid introducing the executive’s successor as though the reduced role had already been accepted. A temporary assignment should not become an indirect announcement of employment terms that have not been reviewed and discussed.

Present a proposal without manufacturing agreement

Use this proposed opening only after the role has enough substance for discussion and advisers have cleared the proposal’s terms. Name what remains open for the individual to consider.

We are considering a different role because this work remains necessary. Here are its outcomes and authority. The proposal needs a clear discussion and the appropriate review. I do not want to present a role that exists only to avoid a harder conversation.

Ask the executive to describe how they understand the revised responsibility, reporting relationship and authority. Clarify any difference without pressing for an immediate declaration of enthusiasm. If the person raises a consequence outside your authority to address, refer it to the designated adviser. Do not treat continued employment in the current arrangement, a polite response or silence as agreement to a different job.

Design the specialist work independently of the incumbent

Hypothetical application: A senior executive struggles with the expanded operating role but has demonstrated specialist capability the company still needs. The review defines that specialist job independently and checks reporting relationships. The company then considers a real proposal instead of an indefinite honorary position.

In the hypothetical, give the specialist job its own output and customer. Specify what it can recommend and what the operating executive decides. Then test whether those boundaries would still make sense if a different specialist held the job. If they depend on the individual continuing to exercise former authority informally, revise the design before calling it a narrower role.

Prepare two accurate explanations for different audiences

The individual needs the reviewed proposal and a route for questions about its terms. Colleagues need the approved working arrangement once a decision is made. Keep those explanations consistent without disclosing private negotiations. Identify who can announce the reporting change and what they will say if asked whether the executive accepted it. Leave unconfirmed timing out of the organizational message rather than implying agreement.

Ask counsel about the actual employment change

Do not promise that a title reduction has no consequences. Avoid humiliating public explanations or treating consent as automatic. Counsel must guide actual employment changes and any unresolved rights or obligations.

Employment counsel and the authorized people lead should review the proposal, process and consequences before you make commitments. This comparison does not determine whether a change can be imposed or what rights follow from it. Record which terms are approved for discussion and who answers questions you cannot resolve. A title change should not be used to conceal a consequential employment decision from either the individual or its reviewers.

Inspect the arrangement after a legitimate agreement

Review whether the revised work is necessary, deliverable, and clearly owned. Check that the arrangement does not undermine the successor or quietly reproduce the previous authority.

At the agreed review, examine the specialist output and the successor’s decisions at the interface. Ask which matters still return to the former executive and why. Establish whether the new manager has the access and authority promised. If the redesign cannot produce its intended work, address that problem through the approved process rather than adding ceremonial duties to make the arrangement appear occupied.

Invite evidence that the proposed accommodation is burdening the successor. For example, ask whether recommendations have become instructions because colleagues continue to recognize the old hierarchy. Hear the incumbent’s account too. Do not interpret their acceptance of a smaller title as acceptance of every later adjustment. Any further change needs its own explanation, authority and appropriate employment review.

Vroom and Jago’s 2007 discussion of situational leadership emphasizes the relevance of the leadership situation. Apply that caution to the authority surrounding this redesigned job. Ask how the reporting arrangement changes who can influence and decide. The paper does not establish that a reduced role will preserve a relationship, or that it is preferable to an exit in this particular organization.

Follow the decision into its own workstream

Use the exit and restructuring playbook if no viable continuing role exists. Examine whether the problem concerns structure or leadership before designing a substitute. Prepare managers through the difficult-conversation guide. Compare the proposed mandate with offer expectations so a prior commitment is addressed directly rather than erased by new language.

Offer a different role because you can explain the work and the conditions for doing it. If you cannot, do not ask a smaller title to carry the weight of an unmade exit decision. Take that decision through the appropriate process and speak accurately about which alternative you are considering.

Sources

Steady at the Top