How to Know When You Have a Target on Your Back?

Yesterday, your judgment was trusted. Today, every decision needs an explanation, and practices your employer accepted for years suddenly justify a written statement. As an executive, how do you know whether management wants you to improve – or wants you out? 

At Gardner Employment Law, we can help you assess what has changed and develop a strategy to protect your position.

What Are the Signs That You Are Being Targeted?

The clearest warning sign is a change in how your employer applies its standards to you. One uncomfortable meeting tells you little. A pattern of selective discipline, new scrutiny, and shrinking responsibilities deserves closer attention.

For an executive, targeting can begin quietly. Your CEO questions decisions that previously fell within your authority. Colleagues stop including you in discussions. HR starts attending routine meetings. Meanwhile, your written record begins to look very different from the career you thought you had built.

Watch for these eight warning signs:

1. Accepted practices suddenly become violations. You receive criticism for what previously was an approved process, reporting practice, or management decision.
2. Rules apply differently to you. Colleagues in comparable roles engage in similar conduct without receiving the same warnings that you receive.
3. Your authority shrinks while your accountability stays the same. You remain responsible for results but lose control over staffing, budgets, or decisions.
4. Scrutiny increases without a clear reason. Management begins tracking small errors, reviewing routine emails, or demanding explanations for ordinary decisions.
5. You lose access to important discussions. You are excluded from meetings or communications you need to perform your responsibilities.
6. Management’s tone changes. Conversations become accusatory, and your explanations receive little consideration.
7. HR formalizes previously informal issues. Matters once resolved through a conversation now produce written warnings or disciplinary meetings.
8. The standard keeps moving. You meet an expectation, only to discover that management now measures your performance against a different one.

Ask yourself:  Has leadership has communicated a consistent standard, applied it fairly, and given you a realistic opportunity to meet it?  If not, trouble may be on the horizon.

How Can You Tell Whether the Criticism Fits the Facts?

Compare the criticism with your prior reviews, management’s instructions, and the treatment of executives in similar circumstances. The question is whether the explanation matches the record.

Start with what your employer says you did wrong. Does the warning identify a specific decision, date, or policy? Or does it rely on nebulous descriptions such as “poor judgment,” “lack of leadership,” or “not being a team player” without explaining what you should have done differently?

Vague criticism is difficult to answer and difficult to correct. Ask for concrete examples and a clear description of the expected conduct.

Then examine what changed. If leadership approved the same practice six months ago, identify that approval. If your responsibilities expanded while your resources declined, record both changes. If another executive followed the same process without criticism, note the circumstances rather than simply asserting that everyone does it.

For example, suppose you receive a warning for approving an expense without a second signature. Another executive, working under the same supervisor and approval requirement, routinely approves similar expenses without a warning. That comparison gives you a specific question to raise: why did the company treat your approval differently?

Pretextual discipline means that the stated performance concern conceals another reason for the action. You do not have to decide the employer’s motive on your own. Your immediate task is to identify inconsistencies and prepare an accurate response.

We represented a client who described feeling that she had a target on her back. After a member of the executive team raised concerns about “DEI” and too many unqualified female employees, our client began receiving discipline for practices that had been standard for years. She felt that the company was using her as a scapegoat.

The sequence illustrates why you should examine what happened before the criticism began:

The timing did not explain the employer’s motive by itself. It did identify a change worth examining. If you face a similar situation, focus on the decisions, communications, and expectations that have changed – not on proving what someone secretly intended.

How Should You Respond When You Feel Targeted?

Respond calmly, document the facts, and ask for expectations you can actually meet. Your response becomes part of the same record as the criticism.

Build a dated timeline. Record your first unexpected warning, changes in responsibilities, key meetings, and subsequent criticism. Separate what you personally observed from what others told you or what you suspect.

Preserve relevant records appropriately. Keep reviews, warnings, policies, approvals, and positive feedback that you may lawfully retain. Get advice about preserving evidence in company systems without removing confidential information or accessing material outside your authorization.

Ask for specifics. Instead of responding, “This is unfair,” ask which decision violated the policy, when the expectation was communicated, and what management expects going forward. Clear questions make it harder for the discussion to remain vague.

Correct inaccuracies without creating new problems. A factual response can identify prior approval, explain the circumstances, and request correction of the record. An angry email or a lengthy accusation can distract from the strongest points. Seek advice before submitting a detailed rebuttal when your position is at risk.

Plan ahead for contingencies.  Update your resume.  Start contacting good acquaintances about openings or suggestions.  Securing a new job is easier if done while you are employed.

As the Wall Street Journal has reported, some workers and managers view performance improvement plans as a step toward termination. If you receive one, look closely at whether it offers a realistic path to success. Does the plan explain what success looks like? Do you have the authority, staffing, information, and time needed to deliver it?

As we discuss in “A Performance Improvement Plan or Documenting Your Exit?”, a PIP calls for a deliberate response. Take legitimate expectations seriously while addressing goals that are unclear or outside your control.

How Can You Protect Your Compensation, Reputation, and Next Move?

Review your agreements and get advice before resigning, accepting changed terms, or signing an exit agreement. As an executive, your next decision may affect much more than your current salary.

Start with your employment agreement, bonus plan, equity documents, and any severance provisions. Identify the terms governing changes in duties, resignation, termination, vesting, and payment eligibility.

If your agreement includes a Good Reason provision, a reduction in authority or compensation may warrant careful review. Whether it qualifies – and what you must do to preserve contractual benefits – depends on the agreement’s language and procedures.

Also examine how the company characterizes the criticism. An allegation of misconduct may carry different contractual consequences from a discussion about performance. Do not assume that the label has no effect on your bonus, equity, or severance.

Your professional reputation deserves attention, too. If an exit becomes likely, consider the terms you would want addressed, including how the company describes your departure, handles reference requests, and communicates your exit from the company.

Conclusion

At Gardner Employment Law, we help clients evaluate disciplinary concerns, review executive agreements, and plan a response that supports those goals. If a departure becomes the best option, we can help to assess the terms before making a decision.