The words “You’re fired” probably helped Donald Trump win the Presidency. They played well with another catch-phrase, “Drain the swamp.” Voters viewed Trump as a no-nonsense reformer and a man of action. They saw the federal government as a place for such a man.
Dozen of firings later the romance of the execution has become a farce. With the recent firing of National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, the refrain “You’re fired” has begun to sound less like reform and more like one man’s vendetta, an egomaniac’s campaign to find advisors that will not disagree with him.
Why were we enamored with a man who could glibly execute the career death penalty? What made us think that political reform was best served by execution? Why do we love to sing the phrase “heads will roll,” an allusion to the decapitation of the guillotine? And why does it seem so bizarre at this stage of the Trump presidency?
When you hire a close advisor or any responsible employee, you are honoring that person with your trust. You are forging a relationship that implies you believe in him or her. The phrase “It’s all business” does not recognize the personal relationship that exists among professionals collaborating, and the phrase “You’re fired” ignores the pain involved in severing that relationship.
Even if firing is necessary, it approximates the ruthlessness of the death penalty which implies that there is no hope for rehabilitation. And if we were to execute criminals with the regularity that Donald Trump fires his Cabinet and close advisors, we would think the justice system had run amok.
Donald Trump has run amok as a chief executive. The ease and frequency with which he fires men and women he has recently hired, shows a breach of trust and a disinterest in cultivating relationships. He has sent the message that if you disagree with me, you will pay the price, the ultimate price. This is not the model for administration, even in the business world.
A responsible executive looks upon the firing of a close employee as his or her own failure as well as the employee’s. The executive chose the employee, invested trust in that employee, wanted that employee to succeed, but could not help him or her grow into the job. Firing is the last resort, the admission that two people failed, the one that hired and the one that did not meet expectations.
Probably the general public would consider this a sentimental view of business, but real executives understand that business is about relationships and a firing is a failed relationship. It is a desperate measure, not a ruthless administration of power. It is clear that Donald Trump does not believe this.
For Trump, firing is just a demonstration of who is boss. Does he feel a fleeting regret that a relationship has crashed and burned? Does he momentarily reflect on his own failure in hiring or nurturing his employee? Does he reconsider whether his expectations could be unrealistic? Considering the regularity and occasional brutality of his firings, it appears not.
Firing is not merely a demonstration of power and resolve. It is a moment of sober reflection about what went wrong. If an executive does not mourn a firing or use it as a mutual learning experience, then the executive is irresponsible, heartless and arbitrary. No one wants to work for such a person, except those who are equally irresponsible, heartless and arbitrary. Not only will the relationship lack trust and loyalty, it will send a message through the organization that trust and loyalty are not valued. Oh, the President wants trust and loyalty from his advisors, but they can expect none of that coming back from him.