"My client, Charles, faced a difficult dilemma. He had persuaded his friend Jason to leave his job and join him at his startup. But, nearly a year later, Jason wasn't meeting expectations, and the board was pressing Charles to fire him. Charles felt caught between loyalty and responsibility: "I convinced Jason to take this risk. I'd feel awful letting him go," he admitted. But he also recognized, "This isn't working.""
"In one chair, he voiced the case for strength-his posture upright, his tone firm: "Enough is enough. The company cannot afford further delays." In the opposite chair, he embodied compassion, speaking gently: "Letting him go would be devastating. I want to give him more time." Back and forth he went, embodying each side. The more he challenged himself, the clearer the situation became: both perspectives were valid and were not irreconcilable."
"Finally, compassionate Charles declared, "At the very least, Jason deserves a fair warning." The stricter side agreed, conceding that fairness also requires clarity and accountability. Charles then set clear, measurable objectives for Jason to meet within sixty days, while also offering a generous severance if he could not. This synthesis gave Charles peace of mind. He was honoring Jason's dignity while safeguarding his company's future."
Conflicting impulses such as loyalty and responsibility can be integrated rather than suppressed. A Gestalt empty-chair exercise can make opposing perspectives palpable and allow each stance to speak. Embodying each position clarifies their validity and reveals points of reconciliation. Setting clear, measurable objectives along with compassionate provisions balances accountability and dignity. Time-bound expectations combined with fair severance preserve both individual welfare and company health. Synthesis strengthens integrity and aligns actions with core values, enabling decisive choices that respect people and sustain organizational momentum.
Read at Psychology Today
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]