6 ms·

I'm not a manager. But I've been in organisations where staff were being laid off. They've all started by telling _everyone_ that the layoffs were coming, the

I'm not a manager. But I've been in organisations where staff were being laid off. They've all started by telling _everyone_ that the layoffs were coming, then holding individual meetings with everyone who might possibly be affected to discuss what that means in practice. You avoid the rumours by being transparent about what's going on. It's not like it's not going to be public in a few hours anyway.

torstenvl 7y ago
That is absolutely the worst possible way to do that. Your workers will become paranoid and anxious. They will "go to ground" as is the natural instinct of any prey animal. All of this makes the lay-off process much, much worse for those affected, it also hurts the morale and productivity of those who remain.
- samstave 7y ago
  And they will start backing up anything and everything they can to take with them.
  - ginko 7y ago
    Why would they do that? Do you trust employees so little?
    - whatshisface 7y ago
      Let's say you trust one employee a lot maybe with a 1 in 1,000 chance of defecting. The formula is 1-(1-1/1000)^n, so if you're sacking 1,000 people that's a 63% chance of at least one defection.
      - oblio 7y ago
        If you're firing 1000 employees and 1 "defecting" (war time vocabulary you're using there, referring to treason, by the way...) and your business is in trouble, then your foundation is very shaky. Plus if I were your competitor I could probably head hunt 5-10 of your key lay offs and probably have them recreate your IP just based on their collective memory, anyway. This paranoia should stop. It's covered by NDAs and such, anyway.
        whatshisface 7y ago
        >war time vocabulary you're using there, referring to treason, by the way... I was using it in reference to the cooperate/defect choice in the prisoner's dilemma. It's a term of art in game theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
        oblio 7y ago
        How does this apply here, though? I don't think it does...
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    You speak only for yourself here.
    - samstave 7y ago
      Nope. Ive managed A lot of teams in the past, its very common for people to take data with them. Code, documentation, etc.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    That doesn't make sense as a concern. Layoffs are a loss cutting measure. If you are doing layoffs of things they produce then essentially by definition what you have isn't all that economically valueable to be worth stealing. It shouldn't be something they could "sell". If it is of value then why are you letting them go instead of producing something else of value in a follow up? Layoffs would be a squandering.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- holtalanm 7y ago
  as opposed to....what? You're going to have that response regardless of how you handle it. At least by being open and transparent about it, your employees can take some solace in the fact that they can actually trust their employer. All the reactions you described would happen no matter what type of delivery mechanism the company uses, and it is very likely that the response will be worse if you aren't up-front and honest about it. If I was working at Bird right now, I'd be brushing up my resume and jumping ship at the first opportunity available, since they clearly don't care about their employees' peace of mind.
  - torstenvl 7y ago
    The method you appear to be endorsing is, in my view, the opposite of open and transparent. Let's say my company is going through rough times. We all know something is coming. Anxiety levels are up. Let's say my leadership knows many of us are going to be laid off. They know I am going to be laid off. They give some vague heads up to us all so they can pat themselves on the back about how honest they are, but they won't tell us if we're on the chopping block. No, instead we will have individual meetings with our leadership over the next several days. That's several days of my leadership knowing and not telling me. Several days of spiking blood pressure every time my boss wants to talk, wondering - is this it? Several days of not knowing what to tell my wife. Several days of not knowing what financial plans to make. Several days of trying to decipher facial expressions of the people around me. Reasonable people can disagree. I can't tell you that you're wrong. But I can tell you that a vague announcement followed by days of waiting to see if the other shoe will drop does not strike me, personally, as open and transparent.
    - baud147258 7y ago
      >The method you appear to be endorsing is, in my view, the opposite of open and transparent. > Let's say my company is going through rough times. We all know something is coming. Anxiety levels are up. > Let's say my leadership knows many of us are going to be laid off. So at this point, what should the leadership do, in your opinion?
      - 7y ago
- matz1 7y ago
  It goes both way. As a worker you too have to realize its just business, nothing personal about it. Learn to accept the situation and adapt.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  Have you experienced this or are you imagining this could happen? My company closed a production line and people were told 12 months before. The whole process was very transparent . People took it really well and things kept moving along.
  - zdragnar 7y ago
    12 months is a long time to line up another job. Announcing the same day, or even the same week, will cause a good deal of disruption. I've survived layoffs of a much smaller scale, and can confirm that productivity goes way down once word gets out until the process is completed.
  - stetrain 7y ago
    It sounds like in that case there was clarity about who was being laid off, as well as plenty of advance notice. I think people are objecting to announcing "Layoffs are coming" and then having to wait some period of time to find out who is included. The timing is also important, what's being discussed isn't "in 12 months" but immediately given the quick turn in cash flow for many of these companies due to a big external event.
kenneth 7y ago
Why not just call an all-hands, during the all-hands announce that there are layoffs and why, and how they're handled… announce it too the whole team. Say that during the all-hands notifications have gone out via email (scripted to go out at the same time you announce) about who's affected and at what terms. Seems sensible.
- prh8 7y ago
  I was part of this exact scenario once. Unsurprisingly, people still thought it was a terrible way to do it. Personally, I agree with you and this strategy though.
  - HelloMcFly 7y ago
    There's no great way to do this. Your job is to effectively to create anxiety, misery, and/or sadness for a large portion of your people. Anything you do is not going to generate great reactions. But while there isn't a "great" way, there are many "bad" and "worse" ways. The story in this post is one of them.

torstenvl 7y ago

That is absolutely the worst possible way to do that. Your workers will become paranoid and anxious. They will "go to ground" as is the natural instinct of any prey animal. All of this makes the lay-off process much, much worse for those affected, it also hurts the morale and productivity of those who remain.

samstave 7y ago
And they will start backing up anything and everything they can to take with them.
- ginko 7y ago
  Why would they do that? Do you trust employees so little?
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    Let's say you trust one employee a lot maybe with a 1 in 1,000 chance of defecting. The formula is 1-(1-1/1000)^n, so if you're sacking 1,000 people that's a 63% chance of at least one defection.
    - oblio 7y ago
      If you're firing 1000 employees and 1 "defecting" (war time vocabulary you're using there, referring to treason, by the way...) and your business is in trouble, then your foundation is very shaky. Plus if I were your competitor I could probably head hunt 5-10 of your key lay offs and probably have them recreate your IP just based on their collective memory, anyway. This paranoia should stop. It's covered by NDAs and such, anyway.
      - whatshisface 7y ago
        >war time vocabulary you're using there, referring to treason, by the way... I was using it in reference to the cooperate/defect choice in the prisoner's dilemma. It's a term of art in game theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
        oblio 7y ago
        How does this apply here, though? I don't think it does...
- jacquesm 7y ago
  You speak only for yourself here.
  - samstave 7y ago
    Nope. Ive managed A lot of teams in the past, its very common for people to take data with them. Code, documentation, etc.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  That doesn't make sense as a concern. Layoffs are a loss cutting measure. If you are doing layoffs of things they produce then essentially by definition what you have isn't all that economically valueable to be worth stealing. It shouldn't be something they could "sell". If it is of value then why are you letting them go instead of producing something else of value in a follow up? Layoffs would be a squandering.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
holtalanm 7y ago
as opposed to....what? You're going to have that response regardless of how you handle it. At least by being open and transparent about it, your employees can take some solace in the fact that they can actually trust their employer. All the reactions you described would happen no matter what type of delivery mechanism the company uses, and it is very likely that the response will be worse if you aren't up-front and honest about it. If I was working at Bird right now, I'd be brushing up my resume and jumping ship at the first opportunity available, since they clearly don't care about their employees' peace of mind.
- torstenvl 7y ago
  The method you appear to be endorsing is, in my view, the opposite of open and transparent. Let's say my company is going through rough times. We all know something is coming. Anxiety levels are up. Let's say my leadership knows many of us are going to be laid off. They know I am going to be laid off. They give some vague heads up to us all so they can pat themselves on the back about how honest they are, but they won't tell us if we're on the chopping block. No, instead we will have individual meetings with our leadership over the next several days. That's several days of my leadership knowing and not telling me. Several days of spiking blood pressure every time my boss wants to talk, wondering - is this it? Several days of not knowing what to tell my wife. Several days of not knowing what financial plans to make. Several days of trying to decipher facial expressions of the people around me. Reasonable people can disagree. I can't tell you that you're wrong. But I can tell you that a vague announcement followed by days of waiting to see if the other shoe will drop does not strike me, personally, as open and transparent.
  - baud147258 7y ago
    >The method you appear to be endorsing is, in my view, the opposite of open and transparent. > Let's say my company is going through rough times. We all know something is coming. Anxiety levels are up. > Let's say my leadership knows many of us are going to be laid off. So at this point, what should the leadership do, in your opinion?
    - 7y ago
matz1 7y ago
It goes both way. As a worker you too have to realize its just business, nothing personal about it. Learn to accept the situation and adapt.
Ididntdothis 7y ago
Have you experienced this or are you imagining this could happen? My company closed a production line and people were told 12 months before. The whole process was very transparent . People took it really well and things kept moving along.
- zdragnar 7y ago
  12 months is a long time to line up another job. Announcing the same day, or even the same week, will cause a good deal of disruption. I've survived layoffs of a much smaller scale, and can confirm that productivity goes way down once word gets out until the process is completed.
- stetrain 7y ago
  It sounds like in that case there was clarity about who was being laid off, as well as plenty of advance notice. I think people are objecting to announcing "Layoffs are coming" and then having to wait some period of time to find out who is included. The timing is also important, what's being discussed isn't "in 12 months" but immediately given the quick turn in cash flow for many of these companies due to a big external event.

kenneth 7y ago

Why not just call an all-hands, during the all-hands announce that there are layoffs and why, and how they're handled… announce it too the whole team. Say that during the all-hands notifications have gone out via email (scripted to go out at the same time you announce) about who's affected and at what terms. Seems sensible.

prh8 7y ago
I was part of this exact scenario once. Unsurprisingly, people still thought it was a terrible way to do it. Personally, I agree with you and this strategy though.
- HelloMcFly 7y ago
  There's no great way to do this. Your job is to effectively to create anxiety, misery, and/or sadness for a large portion of your people. Anything you do is not going to generate great reactions. But while there isn't a "great" way, there are many "bad" and "worse" ways. The story in this post is one of them.