Worst Way to Lay Somebody Off
April 21, 2010 2:00 PM Subscribe
It's not illegal because we're in the age of 'at will' employment, but how crummy is it to lie to your employees about a lay off?
Longer story - I've been working in the branch office of a midsized national company. Very nice people and I'd reached the point of getting a raise and had the friendship/respect of a lot of senior staff. However the program I was brought in didn't get renewed funding and since I was supporting a function specific to that project, I got laid off. Not surprising given the economy and since some of my other coworkers there was given reduced hours or leave without pay.
However I'm wondering how my layoff ranks in terms of really bad management. The decision wasn't made by my immediate local managers, but by the corporate office. Who had released a brand new org chart 2 days before, stating that I'd be reporting to such and such a person starting at the beginning of the new financial year. And 2 days later, they called my regional manager to tell him that he was going to lay me off the following day.
I can understand how companies don't want to tell people because of losing them before a project is done or even just the risk of going postal. But this is a pretty small company where we all knew each other very well and I'd told them earlier that if they were planning lay offs, to just let me know up front so I could plan accordingly. Putting my name on the org chart wasn't the decision of my immediate managers, but it just seems like really really bad management and communication. Like I can imagine how that kind of action (supposedly I wasn't the only person cut from that division) would be for morale in the remaining employees.
Longer story - I've been working in the branch office of a midsized national company. Very nice people and I'd reached the point of getting a raise and had the friendship/respect of a lot of senior staff. However the program I was brought in didn't get renewed funding and since I was supporting a function specific to that project, I got laid off. Not surprising given the economy and since some of my other coworkers there was given reduced hours or leave without pay.
However I'm wondering how my layoff ranks in terms of really bad management. The decision wasn't made by my immediate local managers, but by the corporate office. Who had released a brand new org chart 2 days before, stating that I'd be reporting to such and such a person starting at the beginning of the new financial year. And 2 days later, they called my regional manager to tell him that he was going to lay me off the following day.
I can understand how companies don't want to tell people because of losing them before a project is done or even just the risk of going postal. But this is a pretty small company where we all knew each other very well and I'd told them earlier that if they were planning lay offs, to just let me know up front so I could plan accordingly. Putting my name on the org chart wasn't the decision of my immediate managers, but it just seems like really really bad management and communication. Like I can imagine how that kind of action (supposedly I wasn't the only person cut from that division) would be for morale in the remaining employees.
This post was deleted for the following reason: It sounds like a crappy situation, and you've got my sympathies, but there doesn't really seem to be an answerable question here. -- cortex
My company went through a layoff in November. Until the day it happened, only about 4 people in an organization of 250 even knew about it - the CEO, VP, an HR project leader, and the head of Marketing. Everyone else was taken by surprise.
Later we heard the expanation that, psychologically, this works better. The layoff was handled by a "separation consultant" firm (somewhat like in Up in the Air, but less creepy) When the news leaks, people get anxious. Productivity fails, gossip begins, people react unpredictably. Some sabotage the firm, some freak out, some contact people outside the company who cause more problems. Lousy as that all is, I believe it. I believe the best way to manage a layoff is not to intone for weeks "watch out, there are gonna be layoffs" but just to pull off the band-aid, and let everyone work in peace until then.
posted by Miko at 2:16 PM on April 21, 2010
Later we heard the expanation that, psychologically, this works better. The layoff was handled by a "separation consultant" firm (somewhat like in Up in the Air, but less creepy) When the news leaks, people get anxious. Productivity fails, gossip begins, people react unpredictably. Some sabotage the firm, some freak out, some contact people outside the company who cause more problems. Lousy as that all is, I believe it. I believe the best way to manage a layoff is not to intone for weeks "watch out, there are gonna be layoffs" but just to pull off the band-aid, and let everyone work in peace until then.
posted by Miko at 2:16 PM on April 21, 2010
It wasn't necessarily a lie. It could have been a hasty re-calculation of the budget. Maybe they put the chart out and then took another look at the numbers and went "Ah crap.. we can't afford gov_moonbean after all..."
posted by amethysts at 2:16 PM on April 21, 2010
posted by amethysts at 2:16 PM on April 21, 2010
I agree with reductiondesign, this is a little ambiguous... You're going to have to comment with more direction for this AskMe, I think. Are you looking to find if this practice is at all typical among employers?
From reading the story a few times, it seems to me like corporate might have changed its mind on the new chart - like it wasn't necessarily a planned lie. Maybe Important Things happened that forced the company's hands, they were left without an alternative, etc.
posted by Tequila Mockingbird at 2:20 PM on April 21, 2010
From reading the story a few times, it seems to me like corporate might have changed its mind on the new chart - like it wasn't necessarily a planned lie. Maybe Important Things happened that forced the company's hands, they were left without an alternative, etc.
posted by Tequila Mockingbird at 2:20 PM on April 21, 2010
Uh, four International Crummy Units (ICUs)?
This is indeed a lousy situation, but it's not clear what you're asking, or that you really have any options that would require evaluation.
posted by Naberius at 2:24 PM on April 21, 2010
This is indeed a lousy situation, but it's not clear what you're asking, or that you really have any options that would require evaluation.
posted by Naberius at 2:24 PM on April 21, 2010
One problem you'll have to realize is that you are ascribing "they" to a bureaucracy. Who is they? The problem is there is no "they". I'm assuming the "they" you said to let you know if something is coming was your immediate management and (maybe) your HR dept. I'm willing to bet that your immediate management didn't know, and HR would not (for various reasons, many of them legal) disclose an upcoming layoff.
So the "they" that knew (parts of the finance organization, the CEO, maybe some very senior executives that your group ultimately reported too) have no knowledge of "you" as an individual, that is they have no knowledge of your personal situation, agreements made with local management, etc. I also wouldn't be surprised if the org chart creation process was a bit divorced from the layoff selection process.
Also, welcome to the club of those that have learned the hard way that employers (as an organization) are not your friend, nor do they have your best interest at heart. When I left a large company to go work at a start-up people would mention how they'd love to work at a start-up, but job security was important to them. I would tell them, in all seriousness, that job security in a corporation is an illusion. The corporation may survive, but that survival is by adapting and changing with market conditions, which often results in reorganizations and layoffs. And, as you (and I) have found out, employment can end with no warning at all.
posted by forforf at 2:27 PM on April 21, 2010
So the "they" that knew (parts of the finance organization, the CEO, maybe some very senior executives that your group ultimately reported too) have no knowledge of "you" as an individual, that is they have no knowledge of your personal situation, agreements made with local management, etc. I also wouldn't be surprised if the org chart creation process was a bit divorced from the layoff selection process.
Also, welcome to the club of those that have learned the hard way that employers (as an organization) are not your friend, nor do they have your best interest at heart. When I left a large company to go work at a start-up people would mention how they'd love to work at a start-up, but job security was important to them. I would tell them, in all seriousness, that job security in a corporation is an illusion. The corporation may survive, but that survival is by adapting and changing with market conditions, which often results in reorganizations and layoffs. And, as you (and I) have found out, employment can end with no warning at all.
posted by forforf at 2:27 PM on April 21, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by reductiondesign at 2:02 PM on April 21, 2010 [2 favorites]