Meta announces “extinction not regret”
Language matters.
In a recent announcement, Meta signaled plans for performance-based terminations. Let’s be clear: there’s nothing wrong with addressing poor performance. It is an indispensable part of the management of any organization. There is also nothing wrong with categorizing turnover into desired (company-initiated) and unwanted (employee-initiated) turnover.
But the term “oblivion not regret” that Meta used is a poor choice of words.
It’s not just dull – it comes across as dismissive and arrogant.
Market perception: Employees as failures
When a company uses a term like “no regrets,” it’s not just talking to an internal audience. It is sending a message to the entire market. The subtext is clear: any employee who leaves under this label is a failure. This damages the reputation of individuals and reflects poorly on the company as an employer.
Relationships are the foundation of any business – not only with current employees, but also with graduates and future hires. Labeling employees in such a definitive way risks alienating people who might become future colleagues, clients or advocates.
Consider this: many individuals who leave in such circumstances go on to thrive elsewhere, building skills and expertise that can benefit the company in the future. The future of work increasingly sees the workforce as a dynamic ecosystem. Forward-thinking companies recognize that exits 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 return later—bring new perspectives, enhanced skills, and renewed energy to the organization. Maintaining positive connections ensures that opportunities for collaboration, re-entry or advocacy remain open.
Performance management and the reality of launches
Meta’s objective to address poor performance is valid. However, poor performance often stems from external factors—misplaced goals, mismatched skill sets, or shifting priorities—not from a lack of talent. These factors may hinder an employee’s ability to thrive in a specific role, but do not determine their overall potential.
Employees who fall short of expectations in one context can excel in another with the right environment, leadership, or opportunities to align their strengths with the needs of the organization. Labeling these individuals as “unrepentant” dismisses their capacity for growth and their potential contributions, whether within the company or elsewhere.
Organizations must create systems for managing these transitions carefully. As Ian Sanders, co-founder of Riley’s Way and managing director and COO of Insight Partners, noted in a podcast, being a kind leader during a termination doesn’t mean covering up the truth or avoiding difficult conversations. It means approaching them with sensitivity, clarity and support. Providing honest feedback about what didn’t work and providing resources for the next step can transform a difficult experience into one of mutual respect and opportunity.
The Cultural Problem
Internally, calling employees “unrepentant” also sends a harmful signal. It shows the workforce that they are easily replaceable, eroding trust and morale. As Adam Grant points out in the originallanguage shapes culture. How leaders frame decisions directly affects engagement and innovation.
Using terms like “transition” or “reset” shows respect and helps employees see departures as part of their career journey—not a final judgment. Companies that align their language with respect and inclusion build stronger cultures. Employees who feel valued—even during difficult times—are more likely to stay engaged and advocate for the organization.
Moving beyond “no regrets”
Organizations need to rethink how they manage and discuss departures. Language is a powerful tool that shapes culture and external perceptions. Terms like “ruinless destruction” 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 one employee’s departure as “not regrettable,” the company later bought the business the same individual founded. The acquisition cost millions – and the employee returned as VP. This story highlights why humility and foresight are essential in exit management.
The future of work is about relationships, not transactions. By treating each departure as an opportunity for respect and growth, companies can build networks of loyal and engaged professionals who stay 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. They work because they choose to – because working for you is their way of achieving their purpose in life.
