Removal from a Managerial Post and Post Changes: Managing Team Lead Removal
Removal from or Change of a Managerial Position
What is removal from a position?
- Not discipline but management authority, yet heavier for the person affected
- Three pillars: documented reasons, a prior conversation, and a new role
- A one-line announcement invites team leader turnover
Handling removal from a managerial post as a formal process changes 'who delivers the news, and how.' Without a process, a removal appears as one line in a reorganization notice, and the person hears about it for the first time at the announcement. Documenting the reasons and telling the person directly before the announcement is the core of the process. Without it, even the remaining team members conclude, 'This is how this company treats people on the way out.' Removal from a managerial post is an exercise of management’s personnel authority, not disciplinary action, but it should be designed knowing it feels heavier than discipline to the person concerned.
Changes in managerial posts split into lateral moves and removals. A lateral move to lead another team keeps the role intact, so the burden is small. A removal, where the person goes back to being a team member without a title, ends the position allowance and turns yesterday’s subordinates into peers. Legally, granting and revoking a post falls within the company’s personnel authority, but legitimacy is generally judged on three questions: does the measure serve a business need, is the hardship to the person reasonable, and was a consultation process followed? Cutting the position allowance or effectively demoting the person makes a dispute much more likely, so start with your rules of employment, the latest case law, and advice from a labor attorney. Managing the person involved works best in three practical steps: in a meeting before the announcement, explain the reasons and the future role; for 2–4 weeks after the announcement, assign tasks where they can deliver results in the new role; and a quarter later, have a senior leader meet them once more. Giving the remaining team members and the new team lead guidance on how to treat the predecessor is another item that is easy to overlook.
The most common failure in practice is a removal with no stated reason. If poor performance is the cause, there should have been feedback and a chance to improve beforehand. Without that record, both the person and their colleagues read it as a 'political decision.' Leaving the person without support after removal is also common. If you leave them with a seat but no role, they leave, and those who remain remember what they saw. Conversely, if you soften the reason out of consideration and dress it up as 'at their own request,' other team leaders cannot tell what the standard is, and confidence in leadership as a whole erodes. When team leader positions are adjusted all at once alongside the December executive and organizational reshuffle, companies that simply post an announcement with no meeting see the most team-leader turnover in the first quarter of the following year.
Inwoo LeeExpert in leadership, communication, and performance management
John KimInstructor John Kim, CEO of Nanum Consulting and author of “B2B Marketing Design”Appointing and dismissing people to managerial posts has long been treated as part of a company’s personnel authority. In Korea, after team-based structures were introduced, the team lead post became separate from job grade, and removal from a post became its own personnel measure. Courts judge its legitimacy using the standards they apply to personnel orders such as reassignments and transfers. Outcomes differ case by case, so have a labor professional review each situation.
Consider a hypothetical case. Company A, a construction materials distributor with 460 employees, planned to remove 4 of its 28 team leaders from their positions in the December reorganization and reassign them as team members. All 3 people who received the same measure last year left within 3 months, and one of them filed a petition for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming an unfair personnel action.
- Mr. Song in HR first pulls the past two years of evaluations and feedback records for this year’s four removal candidates. For the one with no records, he recommends to management that the person be dropped from the list, saying, "If we remove them now, we can’t explain the reason."
- Ten days before the announcement, the responsible executive meets each of the other three in person and explains the three reasons for the removal and their new role. Mr. Song prepares a written summary of the position allowance changes and their basis in the rules of employment, after review by a labor attorney.
- Mr. Park, the departing purchasing team lead, said, "How am I supposed to sit in front of my team?" The executive moves him to lead a new supplier-sourcing project and gives him a seat on a different floor.
- The new purchasing team leader and team members are told: "When you reverse a decision made by your predecessor, tell them first." Manager Song sets a follow-up meeting date between the executive and the affected person for three months later.
- By March of the following year, none of the removed leaders had resigned, down from 3 the year before, and there were no petitions for relief. Team Leader Park's project to find partner companies registered 7 new accounts in the first half of the year.