It might be emotional for some/most (mainly linked to the private situation of the employee?). But this doesn't mean it is irrational.
There is either a clear reason for the fire or the problem lies with the employer. This basic premise is very rational. Some divorces and breakups might be like that, a lot of others not.
Tears will dry up. The reason/facts can help the employee a lot more than a short term comforting moment.
This doesn't mean I completely agree with the author, of course some empathy sounds like a good idea. But that's second to the facts.
Quote: "But believing deeply that I am responsible for how I make others feel has been life changing for me. Being kind turns out to be a long term strategy for maximizing impact."
To a certain degree this is true, but to a much greater degree how other people feel is largely outside of your control.
Yes, being kind is one of the cornerstones of empathetic reciprocity (i.e. the Golden Rule), and being kind as a matter of personal principle is sane; but being kind because you believe you are responsible for the feelings of others... that way lies madness. It leads you into the morass of having to please all of the people all of the time (or else someone's feelings will get hurt), which simply isn't possible (nor should it be).
I find the author's tone to be matter-of-fact, and respectful of the dignity of the person being hired and fired. I know I would prefer this method of being fired, should that day ever come for me.
I like this method because, if it's done as described, it detaches an evaluation of you as an employee from judgements of you as a person. Too often those become jumbled together.
Tears will dry up. The reason/facts can help the employee a lot more than a short term comforting moment.
This doesn't mean I completely agree with the author, of course some empathy sounds like a good idea. But that's second to the facts.