That's understandable. There probably isn't much they can do in that situation, it's a textbook prisoners dilemma. I'm not sure what your experience was like,

That's understandable. There probably isn't much they can do in that situation, it's a textbook prisoners dilemma. I'm not sure what your experience was like, but I'd rather be told the truth than lied to. I understand that the directors of a company are people too, and they want to be seen as good people. In the long run, I respect people who told me a difficult truth much more than I respect the people who made it seem as if they were forced in to a particular course of action by forces beyond their control. I suspect the willingness of upper management to explain the need for layoffs as "surprising", or beyond their control, is as much about thinking of themselves as good people. I'm sure they are fully aware they are compensated for their ability to direct the strategy of a company, and the people they are laying off generally had the least ability to change the direction of the company to prevent layoffs. If they were being fully truthful, the management structure should oftentimes be reducing their compensation first and laying themselves off. That being said, I understand how ridiculous that expectation is. I just think it's insulting to everyone involved when a company fires the people least responsible for the current predicament, and lies while doing it. I'd respect a manager more who told me it was me or them, and they made the best decision for themselves.