Language matters.
In a recent announcement, Meta signaled plans for performance-based terminations. Let’s be clear: there’s nothing wrong with addressing underperformance. It’s a necessary part of managing any organization. There’s also nothing wrong with categorizing turnover into desired (company-initiated) and undesired (employee-initiated) attrition.
But the term “non-regrettable attrition” that Meta used is a poor choice of words.
It’s not just tone-deaf—it comes across as dismissive and arrogant.
The Market Perception: Employees as Failures
When a company uses a term like “non-regrettable,” it’s not just speaking to internal audiences. It’s sending a message to the entire market. The subtext is clear: any employee leaving under this label is a failure. This harms the reputation of the individuals and reflects poorly on the company as an employer.
Relationships are the cornerstone of any business—not just with current employees but also with alumni and future hires. Labeling employees in such a definitive way risks alienating people who could become future collaborators, clients, or advocates.
Consider this: many individuals who leave under such circumstances go on to thrive elsewhere, building skills and expertise that could benefit the company in the future. The future of work increasingly views the workforce as a dynamic ecosystem. Forward-thinking companies recognize that departures are not endings but transitions. Organizations like Accenture and Bank of America have embraced this mindset with alumni networks and re-entry programs. Boomerang employees—those who leave and later return—bring fresh perspectives, enhanced skills, and renewed energy into the organization. Maintaining positive connections ensures opportunities for collaboration, re-entry, or advocacy remain open.
Performance Management and the Reality of Departures
Meta’s goal of addressing underperformance is valid. However, underperformance often stems from external factors—misaligned goals, mismatched skill sets, or changing priorities—not from a lack of talent. These factors can hinder an employee’s ability to thrive in a specific role but don’t define their overall potential.
Employees who don’t meet expectations in one context may excel in another with the right environment, leadership, or opportunities to align their strengths with the organization’s needs. Labeling these individuals as “non-regrettable” dismisses their capacity for growth and their potential contributions, whether within the company or elsewhere.
Organizations should establish systems for managing these transitions thoughtfully. As Ian Sanders, co-founder of Riley’s Way and the managing director and COO of Insight Partners, noted on a podcast, being a kind leader during a termination doesn’t mean sugarcoating the truth or avoiding difficult conversations. It means approaching them with empathy, clarity, and support. Providing honest feedback about what didn’t work and offering resources for the next step can transform a difficult experience into one of mutual respect and possibility.
The Cultural Problem
Internally, calling employees “non-regrettable” also sends a damaging signal. It tells the workforce they’re easily replaceable, eroding trust and morale. As Adam Grant highlights in Originals, language shapes culture. The way leaders frame decisions directly impacts engagement and innovation.
Using terms like “transition” or “realignment” shows respect and helps employees view departures as part of their career journey—not a final judgment. Companies that align their language with respect and inclusivity build stronger cultures. Employees who feel valued—even during tough moments—are more likely to stay engaged and advocate for the organization.
Moving Beyond “Non-Regrettable”
Organizations need to rethink how they manage and discuss departures. Language is a powerful tool that shapes both culture and external perceptions. Terms like “non-regrettable attrition” suggest a lack of respect for individuals and their potential. Instead, companies should adopt language and practices that reflect long-term thinking and mutual growth.
One multinational learned this lesson the hard way. After labeling an employee’s departure as “non-regrettable,” the company later acquired the business that same individual founded. The acquisition cost millions—and the employee returned as a VP. This story highlights why humility and foresight are essential in managing exits.
The future of work is about relationships, not transactions. By treating every departure as an opportunity for respect and growth, companies can build networks of loyal, engaged professionals who remain connected long after they leave.
Remember, your best people work not because they have to, not because you tell them to, and not because you measure them on it. They work because they choose to—because working for you is their way of achieving their purpose in life.
