Employers are well aware that their success hinges on their ability to attract and retain top talent. However, there are instances where they might prefer certain employees to leave voluntarily, rather than just the underperformers they would typically dismiss.

Instead of passively hoping for their departure, some employers resort to creating conditions that, while perfectly legal, encourage employees to resign. Jesse Meschuk, a human resources consultant and former senior VP of HR at a Fortune 500 company, explains that such strategies may be employed due to various reasons, such as overstaffing, a decline in a product line's popularity, or the impact of AI on workforce requirements.

Voluntary resignations can save companies the costs associated with terminations, layoffs, and the provision of severance packages and outplacement services, which, although not legally mandated, are standard in many organizations.

Here are some tactics employers might use to encourage employees to leave:

1. Revoking Flexible Work Arrangements: Abruptly ending hybrid or remote work policies in favor of a full-time office mandate can be seen as a strategy to reduce the workforce and cut costs. Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, appointed by President-elect Donald Trump to lead the Department of Government Efficiency, have openly advocated for such a move, stating in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that it would lead to "a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome." Even when employers have other motives for requiring full-time office attendance, they are often prepared for staff departures.

2. Creating Unfavorable Work Conditions: Employers, particularly managers and department heads, may engineer situations that make it more difficult for employees to perform or enjoy their jobs, or to feel a sense of belonging. This could involve significantly reducing an employee's workload, excluding them from key projects, or giving them the impression that their role is not the best fit for them. Alternatively, they might be subjected to excessive micromanagement.

3. Undermining Job Satisfaction: Employees might receive unexpectedly poor performance reviews without any accompanying raise or bonus, or see a desired promotion given to a less senior colleague. They could also be placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) with little genuine support for improvement.

Chris Williams, a former VP of HR at Microsoft and current leadership consultant, notes that such actions can lead to employees leaving, as managers avoid the hard work of resolving issues or adapting to an employee's style. Meschuk warns against these strategies, not only because they are dishonest with employees but also because they can damage the company culture, driving away high performers and creating a negative signal to all employees.

A Better Approach: Meschuk suggests that, if financially viable, a standing voluntary termination package might be a more ethical and effective approach. This would be less generous than a layoff package but would be available to any employee who feels their role is not working out. While this would incur some cost, it could be less than the expense of intentionally creating conditions to push employees out.

Consequences of Forced Attrition: Williams points out that the employees who leave first are often the best performers, those with the most options. This kind of attrition, if not carefully managed, can lead to chaos within the organization, with key roles left unfilled and a general sense of panic as employees depart rapidly.

Legal Considerations: These push-out strategies are generally legal for at-will employees who are not under contract or protected by other legal safeguards. At-will employment means that an employer can terminate an employee for any reason, or no reason, as long as it is not due to discrimination based on age, gender, race, national origin, or other protected characteristics, or in retaliation for protected activities.

Employee Leverage: The best leverage employees have in such situations is to not resign, as that is what the employer desires. If they choose to stay and fight for their position, they should work harder and make their efforts visible, proving their value and making it difficult for the employer to justify their dismissal. However, if they decide to seek new employment, they must be cautious not to speak ill of their current employer on social media, as potential new employers often check these accounts during background checks.

Conclusion: While the immediate financial savings from pushing employees out might seem attractive, the long-term impact on company culture and performance can be detrimental. The loss of top talent and the creation of a chaotic work environment can lead to a Pyrrhic victory, where initial savings are overshadowed by the damage done to the organization's reputation and ability to attract and retain future stars.