Is it OK to hire a replacement before firing?

TL;DR

A reader asks Alison Green if it's wrong for her company to secretly recruit replacements for employees before firing them without warning.
Green calls it "sneaky and gross" as a routine practice, though discreet talks may be okay if performance issues are clear and addressed.
It erodes trust, limits strong candidates, blocks internal applicants, and signals poor management without feedback or PIPs.[[1]](https://www.inc.com/alison-green/is-it-ok-to-hire-a-replacement-before-we-fire-an-employee/91319036)

The story at a glance

Alison Green, an Inc.com columnist, responds to a reader's concern about her company's habit of secretly hiring replacements before firing underperforming employees who get no prior warning. The company keeps searches hidden to avoid alerting the employee or opening internal applications. This practice came up because it feels slimy to the reader, who worries about similar treatment without performance discussions.[[1]](https://www.inc.com/alison-green/is-it-ok-to-hire-a-replacement-before-we-fire-an-employee/91319036)

Key points

Company recruits and hires replacements before firing, but new hire starts only after the original employee leaves.
Searches are secret: no public ads, no internal postings, to prevent the targeted employee from finding out.
Fired employees are blindsided, with no performance improvement plans (PIPs), feedback, or conversations beforehand.
Reader sees it as practical for business continuity but slimy, sneaky, and gross, eroding trust in leadership.
Green agrees it's "sneaky and gross" routinely; discreetly talking to candidates might be acceptable if performance problems are openly addressed first, but even that's not ideal.[[1]](https://www.inc.com/alison-green/is-it-ok-to-hire-a-replacement-before-we-fire-an-employee/91319036)
Reasons include weaker candidate pools from covert processes, morale hits from secrecy, and inability for internals to apply.

Details and context

The practice avoids vacancies but skips basic fairness like warning employees or giving them a chance to improve. Green notes that if performance coaching is happening and failure seems likely, managers might quietly line up options to avoid starting from zero—but secrecy still risks poor hires since top talent skips shady processes.[[2]](https://www.askamanager.org/2010/08/how-do-you-replace-employee-who-is.html)

Better approach: fire first, then search openly for the best candidates, covering duties short-term with temps or staff. This builds trust and avoids the "shady" feel that turns off applicants and demoralizes teams. No legal issues mentioned, but it signals deeper problems like abrupt firings without cause discussions.[[2]](https://www.askamanager.org/2010/08/how-do-you-replace-employee-who-is.html)

Key quotes

"Nah, it’s sneaky and gross, particularly as a routine practice." – Alison Green[[1]](https://www.inc.com/alison-green/is-it-ok-to-hire-a-replacement-before-we-fire-an-employee/91319036)

"It’s one thing if you’re working with someone on performance issues... and even then it’s still not ideal for all the reasons you mentioned." – Alison Green[[1]](https://www.inc.com/alison-green/is-it-ok-to-hire-a-replacement-before-we-fire-an-employee/91319036)

Why it matters

Secret pre-firing hires undermine workplace trust and fairness, making employees fear sudden ousters without warning. Managers risk weaker hires and low morale, while employees get no shot at internal moves or improvement. Watch if your company skips feedback or PIPs, as it may point to bigger management flaws.