AmCham Slovakia

by Jana Záchenská of Restartup

I still remember the first time I was fired.

I was working in public administration as a spokesperson. After a change in leadership, it became clear that the usual “clean-up” would follow. Although I had secured the position without any personal or political ties to the previous management, I suspected that the new leadership would not want me to stay.

First, a new colleague arrived. Nobody explained what her role was. She sat next to me in the office, and gradually, parts of my responsibilities began to be taken away from me. Emails started arriving with messages such as: “I forbid you to do this.” “I am instructing you to do this.” Slowly, I went from being someone who was simply doing her job to becoming persona non grata.

This went on for about three months. In the meantime, I learned from a friend that the new colleague was going to replace me. Slovakia is a small country.

So I knew what was coming. And I knew that my dismissal had nothing to do with my performance. Yet when the day finally came and management told me, with very little empathy, that my position was being eliminated and that I would have to leave, it still hit me hard.

It was the first time I had ever been fired.

And that experience taught me something I now consider extremely important in my work with managers: understanding why a decision has been made – or even knowing in advance that it is coming – does not mean that the way it is communicated no longer matters.

When we cannot change the decision, we can change how we communicate it

Companies spend a great deal of time preparing difficult decisions. They calculate financial scenarios, address legal obligations and design internal processes. Yet sometimes far less attention is given to the conversation itself.

Who will deliver the news? What words will they use? What will the manager do if the employee becomes angry, starts crying or simply remains silent? Will there be space for questions? And what will we communicate to the people who remain in the organisation?

In Radical Candor, Kim Scott describes good leadership as a combination of two abilities: caring personally and speaking directly. Difficult conversations require both.

Empathy does not mean softening the truth. Transparency does not mean communicating without emotion.

We may not be able to change the decision. But we can significantly influence the experience of the person receiving it.

Trust is built long before a crisis arrives

Communication matters not only when someone is being let go.

Trust between employees and management is built through hundreds of small, everyday interactions. When people trust their leaders, they are more willing to engage, speak openly about problems, contribute ideas and invest their energy in their work.

And there is another important dimension: loyalty.

At a time when demographic trends are making the competition for talent increasingly challenging, companies can no longer focus only on how to attract employees. Knowing how to retain them will be just as important.

Transparent and empathetic communication is therefore not a “soft” management skill. It influences whether people trust the organisation – and whether they want to stay.

Transparency without explanation is not enough

We will increasingly see this in conversations about pay as well.

The question “Why does my colleague earn more than I do?” may be uncomfortable for many managers. European pay transparency requirements, however, are moving organisations towards greater openness about the criteria used to determine remuneration.

Having a system is not enough. Managers need to understand it well enough to explain it to employees.

An answer such as “That’s simply how our compensation system works” can quickly turn a legitimate question into a conflict.

Transparency without explanation can create almost as much uncertainty as silence.

People listen to what we do not say, too

In The Fearless Organization, Amy Edmondson describes the importance of psychological safety – an environment in which people can ask questions, raise concerns and express disagreement without fear of humiliation or punishment.

This becomes particularly important during periods of uncertainty.

If employees do not have the opportunity to ask management a question, it does not mean they will stop asking it. They will simply ask someone else – in the corridor, over coffee or outside the company. And by then, the answer may have very little to do with reality.

Communication therefore does not end when information has been delivered. It requires dialogue, room for questions and managers who can explain not only what is happening, but why it is happening and what comes next.

What remains after the door closes?

Two people can receive exactly the same difficult news.

One may leave confused, humiliated and feeling that they have not been treated fairly for months. The other may leave disappointed or angry, but understand what happened, have their questions answered and feel that they were treated with respect.

The business outcome may be identical. The human experience is completely different.

And that experience is not observed only by the person who is leaving. It is also noticed by everyone who stays.

That is why every manager should focus on transparent, direct and at the same time empathetic communication. Not simply to handle one difficult conversation well, but because everyday communication is what creates trust – and trust creates employees who do not merely show up because they have to, but who feel connected to the company, actively contribute and want to be part of its success.

People may eventually forget the exact words you used.

But they are unlikely to forget how the conversation made them feel.