4 ms·

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

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?
  - mcguire 7y ago
    Go through the office in the middle of the night and leave pink sheets on employee's chairs?
- HelloMcFly 7y ago
  > 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. Alternatively, that's several days for you to start making contingency plans. Anxiety and negative feelings are entirely unavoidable in mass layoffs. You have to do it one way or the other.
- andrewaylett 7y ago
  >next several days Really needs to be same day, and really should be possible to be same day. Also, at least in the UK, there's a process to go through and once you realise you're going to have to make redundancies, you _have_ to tell everyone affected that their jobs are at risk. I know such things are anathema to much of the US.
- holtalanm 7y ago
  > The method you appear to be endorsing is, in my view, the opposite of open and transparent. I don't agree. With an ahead-of-time announcement like that, it gives employees time to prepare for the possibility of being laid off. I.e. working on resume, reducing home budget, etc.
  - torstenvl 7y ago
    Those are two separate questions, aren't they? I don't disagree that people are capable of taking risk mitigation steps in the absence of open and transparent information. But that doesn't mean the absence of open and transparent information is somehow rendered open and transparent. Overall my point is this: if I'm going to be laid off, the open and transparent thing to do is to tell me as soon as practicable, not to withhold that information just to facilitate a one on one conversation that may or may not meet an unspoken emotional need. There may be reasons for doing the latter, but I view openness and transparency as being antithetical to the withholding of important information.

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?
- mcguire 7y ago
  Go through the office in the middle of the night and leave pink sheets on employee's chairs?
HelloMcFly 7y ago
> 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. Alternatively, that's several days for you to start making contingency plans. Anxiety and negative feelings are entirely unavoidable in mass layoffs. You have to do it one way or the other.
andrewaylett 7y ago
>next several days Really needs to be same day, and really should be possible to be same day. Also, at least in the UK, there's a process to go through and once you realise you're going to have to make redundancies, you _have_ to tell everyone affected that their jobs are at risk. I know such things are anathema to much of the US.
holtalanm 7y ago
> The method you appear to be endorsing is, in my view, the opposite of open and transparent. I don't agree. With an ahead-of-time announcement like that, it gives employees time to prepare for the possibility of being laid off. I.e. working on resume, reducing home budget, etc.
- torstenvl 7y ago
  Those are two separate questions, aren't they? I don't disagree that people are capable of taking risk mitigation steps in the absence of open and transparent information. But that doesn't mean the absence of open and transparent information is somehow rendered open and transparent. Overall my point is this: if I'm going to be laid off, the open and transparent thing to do is to tell me as soon as practicable, not to withhold that information just to facilitate a one on one conversation that may or may not meet an unspoken emotional need. There may be reasons for doing the latter, but I view openness and transparency as being antithetical to the withholding of important information.