Ask HN: How can we lay people off without cruelty? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: How can we lay people off without cruelty?

Hi HN, it’s bad out here and I need advice on the most humane way to lay people off. It’s more than half of the company, the company itself is small (less than 50 people) and very close. I’m the head of engineering, so I have a large share of those kind folks to let go. Literally I have to lay off friends.

I know we’re gonna do the basics as best we can of course: more than 2 months’ redundancy package, try and find roles for people as best we can, do the paperwork right so they can claim anything they need to.

I want to know your advice for the human element; how to tell people and not be cruel. How to balance that against honestly trying to save what we can.

Eg. I hate that when I read stories about layoffs it always comes as this awful surprise and then you have to immediately leave, it’s so abrupt how can you say goodbye properly? But that seems to be some protection against someone acting in a way they normally wouldn’t and doing something destructive in the heat of the moment. How can we possibly preserve both properties?

We want to tell people one-at-a-time and in-person. Is this best? Why do companies even mass-tell people? But then I don’t know how anyone can keep their composure going back to their desk to pick things up though... Quickly word would get out, diminishing the point of telling people one-at-a-time. Where to have these conversations is also an issue, the office is pretty small. And we need to have a lot of them in just a short time too.

It’s going to be awful regardless, but I would like any advice on how to make it the least awful. The least-awful, that is, for those who have to leave; since if I get the dubious privilege of riding the death spiral a bit longer then we can leave my own feelings out of this.

View on HN

- Severance package, already done

- Job help, docs, classes on how to get a job

- Leadership should share consequences, at a minimum salary reductions. This is important because typically bad decisions come from the top, while the folks at the bottom suffer from them.

- Be completely honest at every point.

- Look 'em straight in the eye, tell them you're sorry because XYZ.

It happens. Don't beat yourself up over it. I've been laid off in the past and it was ultimately positive. Got a break and it led to better opportunities.

Thanks for this advice. They're a great team, I know they'll move on to bigger and better things; but I know it will be stressful for them in the short term.

Being honest should be easy, because I will lose nothing by doing it.

I've run interviewing workshops in the past; as part of a diversity outreach programme for a FAANG and also just for friends looking for career changes/upgrades. So I'm sure I could put something together for anyone who feels rusty.

All that is well and good but I can't help but notice that you excluded anything about reducing the salary of leadership for making decisions that led to this in the first place. It could just be the cynic in me, and maybe you intend to do that very thing, but I also know it's the hardest one to actually do.

It's just symbolic, but if you want to save face, this is how you do it. Nothing else will matter if you and the leadership that caused this don't take a salary cut.

Yeah I'm the one who needs to take the biggest cut - the founders actually pay themselves less salary than me. For the ICs that stay though, we want to keep things the same.

Outsource job placement services.

Your job is to move the company forward.

I’ve gone through this and I think this comment is spot on. Be honest and upfront. Help them as much as possible with landing their next job. Be respectful of their situation.

One recommendation I have is to clarify the terminology.

I'd call it a "layoff" if it is expected that business conditions will improve and employees will be given the option to continue their employment at that time.

If it's a permanent situation then I'd call it something else like "dismissal for business reasons" or "downsizing due to market conditions."

Personally what I'd love to see companies do is:

- executive staff and management taking pay cuts (ideally zero pay for C-level execs and directors) first

- offering an option of reduced hours and/or pay

- offering an option to return to work if business conditions are expected to improve

- offering ownership or open source agreements for canceled projects if possible

- providing at least six months of severance pay for anyone who is dismissed, paid immediately along with full vacation and sick day allowances

- immediately vesting any pending equity and options for anyone who is dismissed

- providing office space and placement services which people can use while looking for a new job

- working with other companies to provide jobs, even temporary or contract jobs

- eliminating noncompete restrictions if any

- telling everyone at the same time, as soon as possible

- honestly explaining the situation and how and why people were selected

- honestly explaining the company's financial situation

- being open to creative suggestions from employees for alternative options

- giving two weeks' notice, much as employees would be expected to do

- sponsor a company alumni organization (startupalumni.org) with social events, seminars, and other events, to enable people to keep in touch

- provide alumni email addresses (@startupalumni.org)

Some good recommendations & thoughts here.

It is a layoff by your terminology, because we're in that insane VC-money world ("poison pill" as I've seen it called on here!) where it's "go big or go home". So the plan is we win it all back, and we re-hire everyone (although who would ever re-join after a layoff I don't know, but that would be the plan), the alternative is complete shutting down.

Re: exec staff pay cut. We can't lay people off to save ourselves, that's sociopathic. I can't do $0 though, I get paid 20% more than a senior engineer here, and I've not got capital investments.

Re: reduced hours/pay (or furloughing as someone else called it) is a great idea. I used to dream of the 4-day work week, ideally under better conditions...

Not enough money in the bank to do 6 months severance, but more than 2 is available along with all leave.

We'll lose the office too, so can't do office-space :(

Most of the others are doable I reckon!

I also suggested my own laying-off, since that'd save a bit more money and the engineers we've got are so great that they basically don't need management... The founders asked me to stay though.

Your "layoff" is a "furlough". "Layoff" is a legal term that means "downsizing for business reasons".

I second this.

Yes, it's important to get this straight. Use the right term when applying for unemployment benefits or prepare for a lengthy struggle with unsympathetic clerks at the UI benefits office.

Colloquially we say 'fired' when the contract is terminated by the employer for any reason (or no reason), but at least in California, the EDD understands this as 'fired for cause', i.e. misconduct, which makes you ineligible for benefits.

I got the impression, that those who are capable of correctly filing an UI benefits claim by themselves are those who need those benefits the least.

> executive staff and management taking pay cuts (ideally zero pay for C-level execs and directors) first

One can dream, but sadly I’ve never ever seen this happen.

> Why do companies even mass-tell people?

You answered this question yourself mostly -- In a team of 50, with half being gone, the rumor will spread faster than you can notify people. You'll have people just sitting waiting for the call to see if they are gone or not, and communications will look like they are mismanaged.

So tell people quickly and concisely, and focus on their primary question first - "How does this affect me?" Do not let people wonder for even a minute if they are staying or going.

Although I likewise dislike mass notifications, they way I've seen it done on multiple occasions, both in-person and remote, is to hold two simultaneous meetings. "If you are in this room, you are staying." vs. "If you are in this room, you are leaving." That way, the question of "Where do I stand?" is never in doubt. And you at least have everyone in the same room in the same boat, so you aren't trying to manage both groups at the same time. It sucks, but it works. And you will not come out of this with people thinking positively about you, so just take that hit and get it done.

Also be careful with helping them to find new roles. Not everyone who is let go is going to want to just jump right into another shop doing the same thing. Assuming that they do just want another role right away can make it look like you consider them to be a commodity, not a person with their own direction and goals in life. So feel free to offer help, but do not make assumptions on what that help should look like.

You are also going to have to answer the question: why did you choose us? If you are closing a business unit that is easy, but otherwise you will want an answer up front.

This may be really difficult for such a large number of staff to reduce, but if any sort of temporary furlough arrangement would let you reduce headcounts while giving people time to find employment, it could be huge for some people.

My first job in the industry, I was in a five person department that needed to reduce it's headcount by one. I can tell you that had someone laid someone off, it would've been me, just because of the needed experience and locations and stuff like that. Though it was never said at the time, it just is the logical call.

Anyways, my boss chose instead to furlough the entire department one day a week. Obviously we lost 20% of our pay and had an extra day off a week. I found it actually really nice at the time because my income was well above my spending then, and I had a weekday off for doctor's appointments and post office trips and stuff which is hard to do when you 9-5 Mon-Fri. But obviously the company was in a weak spot, so I also started looking for a new job.

When I found one, everyone else in my department went back to full time, I never had a gap that prevented me from covering my bills. I am still super grateful to that employer for how they handled this.

This is a really good idea that I'm going to suggest. If nothing else, it gives more people more time to look for another real job...

Be cautious doing this. Many people can’t easily take a 20% pay cut. Your best people might instead choose to leave. Others may be bitter about it. Since they’re sticking around it can drag down morale. This is only possibly viable if there’s a clear plan back to 100%. There’s a reason it’s not commonly done.

If it's truly a lay off, I would simply tell everyone. We're going to lay off X% of the workforce. If you want to voluntarily quit, we will provide you with X severance. Otherwise, we will pick and choose. Those that can find new work will do so fast. To be least cruel, you want most of your employees to find new work ASAP. That is the least cruel outcome. Thus simply telling everyone and letting people seek out employment before hand is the best way IMO. If it comes down to too many people leaving, then you can start counteroffering, or better yet, take the savings.

Thanks for responding.

We have our own ideas about who we would like to stay (I mean, aside from "everyone" :( ), but we plan to tell everyone the severance package so that anyone we want to stay can still make their own decision with all the info.

This means then we need an idea of "if X doesn't stay, who Y should we ask to stay instead?", which comes uncomfortably close to stack-ranking.

Often managers want to hold onto the very staff who are most likely to voluntarily quit. Simple reason being that the more competent, and sometimes underpaid for their level of skill, staff only need a nudge to job-hop. Whilst the laggards are more likely to want to stick around.

Of course, in the current climate with so much bad news, the optimism about finding a new job might be curtailed.

Yes, to be honest I assume that this will start a death-spiral. In that the people we want to stay (having the most hopeful combo of critical knowledge, skills, etc.) can just take a little longer to find a new job than those laid off but _will_ eventually. So then we need to replace them to even carry out the post-layoffs plan, and so then over time we drain knowledge and skills, and then it all falls apart.

That's sort of my assumption right now, but while enough are still here I plan to see if I can make it work for them.

This will lead to most of the best to voluntarily resign, since they'll be the very first be employed elsewhere and don't like financial uncertainty. Worse, you may have too many reduntant roles (which are less required) while lacking in another role.

Announcement is good, honesty is good, punishment for higher ups is absolutely required (and announced), future plans need to be announced on how to save the company financially and ensure those who stay won't have a problem in a near future.

They are laying off more than 50% of the company, they are still going to lose their best employees even if they are not laid off. I do agree though that distribution between the roles needs to be taken into account.

Yeah, so... when I see layoffs, and I've been retained (presumably because they think I'm somewhat better than whomever was laid off), my first step is to look for a new job. Which means the company ends up with even less staff.

In my situation you end up with the 'worst' half, but they're also the ones least likely to leave since they have fewer prospects.

Sounds like a good way to get stuck with the worst performers.

I realize that we want layoffs to be humane, but putting the company in a worse spot than it is at present doesn't help anyone.

The best performers will quit regardlesd what you do... there is a german saying about rats on a sinking ship

There is also an english saying about rats on a sinking ship.

I can speak in the context of SW eng teams, but not other kinds of teams within tech companies.

I've had to layoff direct reports during multiple layoff waves at a couple different companies. (Moreover, I myself have been laid off when a small company went out of business or when a business unit was eliminated.) I don't think it's difficult to avoid cruelty during a layoff, you just have to be very honest and make it clear that it is not personal. The announcement should be company-wide, but then talk to each person individually or in small teams if possible, and afterward go together offsite to a bar/restaurant and hang out with everyone who can join.

Honestly in many cases it's better for them to move on rather than go down with a sinking ship. In tech over the past couple decades there's always been jobs elsewhere for engineers, even after the dotcom bust. I have tried to help place people elsewhere using my network and told them I'd give them a good reference if they needed one. HR tends to discourage you from making an extra effort like this -- e.g. "you should only acknowledge that they worked at the company, don't give a recommendation" -- because a recommendation can become a liability, but I feel it's my recommendation as their direct manager and I am taking personal liability for it.

---

There's something else I'd add -- not about layoffs but related to firing people. Even if you're firing someone for performance reasons, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE CRUEL. I've seen so many people get fired in such a cruel manner, and it's totally unnecessary. There's absolutely no need for the manager to have any sense of anger or betrayal over a person's poor performance in a role.

Someone's performance in a particular role in a particular company has nothing to do with that person's worth as an employee. It was always just a bad fit, or a bad situation -- it doesn't mean that this is a bad person or even a bad worker, and should not reflect upon their self-worth. In my career, I've had to fire two people for performance reasons, and both times I made this difference clear, and thankfully we were able to actually maintain a friendship afterwards.

Thanks for your advice. It doesn't have to be cruel, but I've just read so many stories here about times when it was... So _something_ drives that cruelty, and I need to avoid it.

Okay, so it sounds like company-wide announcement first and then start getting into the 1:1s quickly to prevent people from suffering in purgatory.

Being let go is definitely not personal for anyone, it's not a cheeky excuse to let go the low performers. I'd keep them all if I could, I've got good references for everyone, we got phenomenally lucky with hiring - just not phenomenally lucky with everything else.

I've worked at places where I can't do things like: give realistic interview feedback, give proper references to people leaving; I hated it. Now that I'm in a leadership position - as badly as it has turned out - I can at least make my choice to do these basic humane things.

You can have two tracks of 1-1s. You do the layoffs and pick a lieutenant to do 1-1s with the stayers. They should be able to get through those much quicker so you can leave your go forward team with as little purgatory time as possible. I would suggest prioritizing that list by how worried you think they’ll be as an additional attempt at humanity.

One other note: you are transitioning company size. You were on the cusp of midsize and you are right back to startup. Make your choices accordingly. Even if someone was going to be great at 50->100 they may be the wrong person for 25. Keep the scrappy, true-believer do-ers. You’ll need them.

Here’s a point I don’t see in the other comments or in your questions: be careful.

Yes, be humane. Yes, be honest. But also be careful. You will be surprised by who becomes litigious. Avoiding lawsuits will help you continue being humane to those still employed.

1. Is your employment practice liability insurance policy up to date?

2. Say nothing about why a particular person was chosen. Saying you let someone go because they are expensive, if they are over 40, could open you up to an age discrimination suit.

3. Have two people on the call with each person. One to deliver news. One to take notes.

4. Have IT terminate their access as you start the conversation with each person. If someone needs access to get family photos or something, you can help them later.

It sucks, but it is also rather routine event. Two months severance is very generous if you really are in desperate straits.

Good luck.

> 3. Have two people on the call with each person. One to deliver news. One to take notes.

Two against one does not seem like the most humane way to do it IMO.

> 4. Have IT terminate their access as you start the conversation with each person. If someone needs access to get family photos or something, you can help them later.

What about sending a message to all your friends at work with your new email address, so they can reach you later?

Two against one does not seem like the most humane way to do it IMO.

It's not about us-vs-them or 2-v-1. This is about liability and accountability - especially if the affected person is/can/will-be litigious. You would be very surprised what some people "hear" during a normal conversation. A simple passing phrase like "I wish I could keep you on, but" could be misconstrued to something completely different like discrimination (age, gender, etc).

Keep things simple and record the conversation. No need for two people.

That requires two party consent in many states.

I have no experience in this, but I'd prefer to be laid of at Titanic style layoff party where it would be clearly presented how effed the company is financially and how quickly it is estimated to run into the ground then some people would be informed they got the privilege of option of riding death spiral a bit longer and other would learn that they can already start their two months of redundancy package whatever that is. Then everyone can eat, socialize, share personal plans and advices between themselves, eat nice food and get slightly drunk possibly.

That sounds to me like the most humane way to go. Kind of wake for the company as it existed so far. Let people mourn together.

This does seem like a really nice way to do it, but the issue in practice may be that some of those companies are doing layoffs in an attempt to stablize or give them more time to find a way out of their death spiral. As a result, many companies probably wouldn't want to hold an employee event summarizing how f'ed the company is if there is any chance of it turning around

I think brutal honesty is a good way to go and good start of a way to stay and try to salvage things.

At the point where you have to lay off 50% of your staff it's already apparent that you can't BS your way out of trouble.

I'm relatively new to the industry, so this is the first recession I've been around for, but I've been noticing some patterns in the public layoff announcements I've read.

One thing that seems popular is a mass notification that says "hey everyone, layoffs are coming, we'll notify each of you individually whether you're affected or not." I suppose you could do the in-person meetings after that, and that might be okay for a small shop like yours, but it also seems like it might drag things out? I wouldn't want to be sitting around wondering if I'm going to be the next person called into the HR office.

Especially since this is a small company, give everyone else the day off too. It doesn’t alleviate the survivor guilt. But it lets them spend time with their friends. And no one is in any mood to anything productive that day.

The best thing to do that day is head to a bar and sit in a group and let it all out.

Be fast.

I have read many comments but the cruelest part for me is that when this starts nobody feels safe and you don't want this feeling to stick around with the ones that stay.

It's better if people leave the same day to avoid sabotage and helps to turn the page fast.

And be aware that your culture will be hit and you will loose more people that the ones you are letting go.

One, be as transparent as possible, as early as possible. Hopefully your company has not been hiding that there are financial problems so that it won't come as a huge surprise that layoffs are happening. If you haven't done this yet, please start communicating. You do not necessarily need to tell the whole company that layoffs are happening, but you do need to tell them that this might happen.

Two, avoid saying anything about how hard this was for you. They do not care.

It is definitely best to tell people in person, and individually. I don't have any advice as to how to do so in a small space. It is for the best to restrict access to sensitive systems once a person is laid off, but you can keep them access to slack or email so people can say goodbye if they'd like.

> You do not necessarily need to tell the whole company that layoffs are happening, but you do need to tell them that this might happen.

If it's a few people, sure you don't need to tell the whole company. If it's half the company, you need to let everyone know.

> Two, avoid saying anything about how hard this was for you. They do not care.

I totally agree. Management should accept responsibility, and acknowledge how hard it is for the employees. And then let people know what's going to happen next. What severance and job placement looks like, etc (ps have that figured out). If you can adjourn for the rest of the day, that's good too.

If there's anyone not present for the big meeting, try to notify them directly asap, too.

Thanks for responding. We've been honest about the situation, but I think people will feel blindsided because due to our own mistakes we mis-calculated our expected runway by a disastrous amount. I only found this out a day ago, at my position.

You're right that my own issues are secondary, my family will support me there. My duty is to those who are being laid off, and then to those who are staying but losing their close coworkers.

Are you firing the person or persons who grossly mismanaged your books?

If not, it’s going to come off as pretty hollow.

I don't know if this is a good idea, but I have seen it done. And it should have been done today, and a check is a nice touch.

Everyone that is staying leaves the office at some point early, before anyone could be thinking about lunch. They don't all leave together, some just don't come in.

There is a company wide announcement for an immediate meeting. Nearly all attending are layoffs. It's a nice touch if the CEO or President is there and says some nice things, or whomever your best aural talent is. You have them lay out the facts, thank them, wish them luck. That's it. Give them time to process and start moving at their own volitions, and respect them as civilized individuals.

Talking about cruelty, people can understand you if they can relate to you and think "shit, this is tough, I would have to do the same in their place".

You probably don't want to give away the exact financials (runway/funding/expenses/customer numbers), but you can still be specific without that. Like "We hired you because we wanted to deliver X in Y months. We took the risk to be the first on the market, but it didn't work out. With the departure of the XYZ customer, we simply don't have enough cash to keep paying the salaries.". Make sure it reads more as a personal email than a soulless press-release with "given the worrying situation", "on our journey" and other BS phrases.

Bear in mind that people will inevitably question "why I got laid off why John from team B did not". If you want to reduce this stress, find a good formal explanation (like we are forced to close feature X because we lost customer Y, and hence are laying off the folks that worked on it).

Otherwise, good references, decent severance. Canceling some externally observable verifiable bonus for yourself could somewhat reduce the tension. You could forfeit that annual board meeting in Hawaii, but buy a hell lot of goodwill from people that worked with you (and that will still be in your network) by being public about that. It could pay off nicely some years from now.

Been laid off a few times. Many people will disagree with this, citing necessary privacy, but if your goal is to avoid being "cruel," my advice is to let people keep their work files. Obviously with some restrictions... one programmer can't clone your entire repo, people can't take customer lists, etc. But work product that people produced, you should allow them to take it with them. Costs you nothing to copy some files.

My last firing was a blindside, got the cardboard box and security escort. What really bothered me, for a long time, was that all the programs, tools, reports, analytics, processes that I had built were all taken from me. Tons of complex SQL queries, all the code for all the programs and dashboards I created, many non-trivial Excel models, business simulations, all kinds of little experiments with different data tools, much more. The amount of time it would take to rebuild would have been enormous (years, easily), but of course I couldn't anyway without access to the data sources. Additionally, no examples to show or ability to build a portfolio for future interviews, etc. The company would have lost nothing by sending me a clone image of my PC's hard drive, which I requested multiple times.

Money is nice, sure, a little safety net, but the work itself is often irreplaceable.

There is just no way to do this.

I've seen people send entire repos to themselves. It's not possible to have someone soft thru all the work product and figure out what the employee can take that isn't company confidential.

I've also been on the other side of this and held onto some code... That honestly I never looked at again.

Funny to read this I just, as in 5 minutes ago had to lay off a friend, working 4 years at the company. Did it over facetime. You can feel the reaction in their eyes. That hurt

The book The Hard Thing About Hard Things has a chapter on firing.

Simplifying a lot of detail - managers have to fire their own people. Don't delegate this, no outsourcing, don't tell the sadistic one to do it.

The head has to address the companu, admit that it's their mistake. They overhired, they didn't hit sales targets, they had scope creep. Whatever it was tha led to this. Ideally the CEO. Then don't avoid them, be present, show that you care.

I had a friend who had to deal with a mass layoff. She told people that everyone is replaceable (more to protect her feelings, not theirs). She is no longer a friend.

Do be clear. You can be apologetic, but make it clear that the decision has been made (no "I think"). A sharp knife hurts less. It shouldn't sound negotiable.

Do protect the reputation of those laid off. Often they have more good than bad if they weren't fired immediately. You do owe a reasoning to those who worked under them - if you don't, they may gossip and speculate. Let the laid off person decide what the story is.

Then you do have to offboard them and escort the right people out, especially managers. Have that severance package ready, have security escort them as they clean out their desk and walk them out of the building.

If you are a manager and you are getting headwinds of layoffs, tell your reports ASAP, off the record instead of waiting until the last minute. That gives them time to settle any other personal matters and start looking for a new job immediately.

This is especially important for employees with families since they often have a spouse or some kid needing health insurance. The loss of a job is dangerous for their lives.

Thanks for responding. I really want to do this, but I worry it is unfair to people in other departments who do not get the sneaky down-low info. Really the company itself has to be honest without delay, since that will achieve the same thing but equally for everyone; and I feel like that is what I will push for.

You don't need to worry about being unfair to other distant departments. You only need to tell your reporting tree.

Companies mass tell people because word travels fast and they think it’ll be like ripping off a band aid. They think it’ll be better, but it’s not.

The whole day will be bad. It’ll become clear quickly that those with meetings scheduled are getting laid off. People will wait around for their turn. Others will get out of there fast.

When I got laid off, they divided the team up into two rooms. It turned out one was the people who were getting laid off, the other staying. It was apparently horrific.

I was actually on vacation at the time and not there to see it go down. Instead I had the founder call me on the phone to lay me off. He was more upset about it than me. I appreciated the personal call but found the “this is hard for me too” of the founder annoying at the time. I was losing my income. He still got to be the founder.

1. Never deliver bad news on a Friday.

2. Provide a promise of positive references and access to managers after termination.

3. Allow plenty of time for folks to say goodbye to coworkers and gather their their things in their own time.

4. Consider contacting recruiters to let them know that folks may want to contact them.

5. Be grateful for the effort that these people have given to your company.

6. Make sure that HR will make it a priority to assist in the transition and answer any and all questions for several weeks after termination.

7. Remember that a large termination will send shock waves through your staff, so expect good people to leave after a termination event. Do whatever you need to do to keep good people happy.

Agreed - especially the line about "never deliver bad news on a Friday". It makes the situation seem hopeless for the affected people since they (a) probably have tons of questions that won't have answers, and (b) have no way to make their situation better since interviewing for new roles doesn't really happen over the weekend.

Disagree with the bit about one at a time. You’re laying off 50% of the company, and I can’t think of anything more nerve-wracking wondering if I’d be the next person tapped watching people go in-and-out of a conference room.

One thing to consider if you have any foreign employees you sponsor on temporary working visas (think H1B, E3, etc.) to work in the US: Oftentimes these folks will have extremely limited time to get their affairs in order and leave the country if they can't find another job.

One thing you can do, that costs you nothing, is give them the option to instead continue to work out their 2 months in lieu of severance to provide an extra 60 days of job search.

Quite often they'll have a family, home, car and assets in the US that they'll need to deal with if they can't secure another job in that limited window.

Yeah, to me this is the difficult one - someone on a temporary working visa. Unlike people who don't require visas and can can immediately start looking for work, (I understand) visas require sponsorship. This, in turn, can cause huge family and financial hardships since their lives will be uprooted as they return back to their country. Imagine one of your visa workers just bought a home two months ago and now must leave the country.

I don't know the visa working rules very well. Does anyone know how long a visa worker can reside in country while looking for another job/sponsorship?

The least awful is the aweful way it is typically done.

Quickly and deliberately.

The mitigations are things like severance and job search help.

Talking about how bad you feel having to do it is not less cruel.

The cruelest part of layoffs is false hope.

You knew today and it was Friday.

It should have happened by the end of business.

Good luck.

It's happening early next week, we're not wanting to wait around. Currently we're researching legal obligations (in our jurisdiction there's a law around "consulting" first that's a bit complicated) and that's all it's waiting on. ASAP is the timeline.

I do not plan to say anything about "my feelings", nor to try and be presumptive and give speeches about "their feelings". Our staff will see deeper than platitudes now, just as they have always been above thinking that free beer and pizza compensates for work-life balance.

Are senior management also taking past cuts?

We gotta, for sure right?

Why such layoffs have to be abrupt/sudden?

There has to be a series of things over time that lead to such decisions. I think if such things (that can lead to the layoffs) are communicated in time to the people and with full honesty, this can atleast prepare them to be mentally ready for the possible extreme situtation of a layoff.

Do organisations deliberately don't disclose such things to avoid creating any sense of doubts in people?

The issue isn't that they have to start abruptly, it's that there has to be a clearly-defined endpoint. That way people can feel secure that the layoff is over, and that they aren't at risk. If you do rolling layoffs, people will live in fear (and the best will find employment elsewhere).

Three reasons...

1. Gossip of layoffs causes people to stop working.

2. People email themselves company documents/code/presentations.

3. Some people find other jobs - end up not even being the ones laid off.

Treat them like human beings.

Don't pull shit off like "you have 30 mins. to empty your workspace" or "this guard will escort you outside".

The most important thing: tell it straight to the people who are affected FIRST (either as a group session or 121, doesn't really matter), and only THEN tell the rest of the company. This happened to me once (even though I wanted to leave, just not so fast...), and my boss called me the day before to give me a warning. This was a nice gesture and I really appreciated it.

I have been laid off twice. I have also witnessed a lot of layoffs.

Bad:

Supervisor comes to your office and asks you to come with them. You know you are being laid off, because everyone knows they are doing layoffs. You go to your bosses boss’ office and they tell you. They give you a bunch of paperwork. They escort you out, and you schedule a date to come back and get your stuff.

Good:

They announce there are going to be layoffs. They justify it as a need to ‘fill in kind justification’. Explain the process and procedure. Line up an employment specialist(s), from outside the company. They will provide resume writing help, job search help, financial counseling, and possible family counseling.

When you tell people, you give them a month or two to hand over their work and get their resumes out there, while they are still employed. IMHO being unemployed and looking for a job costs you between 15 and 30 percent of your salary.

Provide a pseudo office where they can go to work on job hunting. Typically away from the work site.

When I was laid off by Siemens they did all of these good things. Although prior lay offs they did not. But I am grateful to them for how they handled it when it was my turn.

Extra bonus good:

Before the end date, organize the people into small groups (3 to 6). These groups have to be people that can care about each other’s success. Have them meet every other day to discuss how they are doing at finding another job.

At the groups, the people need to set goals. Establish limits (e.g. I will not take a job that pays less than abc). Define plans. Set the date when you need to revisit this and possibly change your plans / limits / goals. This date should be no more than 3 months.

Your group’s objective is to share success, support each other, and hold accountable for achieving plans.

It is easy to make the group meeting just a BS session. Need to make it formal with everyone asking about each other. It is easy to lose focus and wallow in self-pity and anger.

When someone gets a job, celebrate it. We did steak and eggs breakfast.

Super bonus good:

Set up a company, that employs everyone at a ¼ time as consultants to the job they used to have. This provides then the ability to retain their salary. But might negatively impact unemployment.

Some great ideas here. The problem is that OP works at a dying startup. The practicality of these suggestions is low.

2 months severance?

If the country you’re in doesn’t provide unemployment benefits then this is too low IMO.

In The Netherlands, unemployment after 6 months of working means you get about 70% of your gross salary paid for 3 months.

I would at least make it 3 months, especially in today’s economic environment.

NIBUD recommends you make it for 6 months on savings (a lot of Dutch can't, but that's besides the point).

Tangent - I'm just curious if someone can chime in.

How about NOT hiring a ton of people as a "metric" to show investors? What happened to leaner companies especially while they're growing?

Do it the german way: Pay them a compensation that let them leave without a too bad mood.

If i would live in a country with more guns than people i would not want a bunch of former employees with a grudge against me...

There been some really good suggestions. There are two concerns you have to balance. The future prospects of the company for the remaining <50% with the urgent needs of the >50% leaving. If you spend to much that might endanger the other <50%. If >50% are paid to little that might encourage the <50% to leave (partially) too. There maybe some sweet spot however the management which put the company in this situation might not the best people to find that sweet spot. See in how far you can involve all your employees and their expertise in making these decisions.

Given that you have a firm pool of money that you can allocate which seems to be less than you are comfortable with look if you can grow them. C-Suite getting pay reductions is one thing that should happen for sure. There might be other ideas obvious to the people you employ. You as C-Suite are missing.

If possible create projections (like a month by month spread sheet) for the future of the company based on the success of projects (or however you make money), costs and so on. Show to your employees that that company has a future after the cut. Show what the managements plan leave for compensating the people you have to let go. Play that out. Show of the "no intervention" world projections. Show what it means to close the entire company, whether that leads to better or worse compensation. Then talk about the limits of the plan. What it didn't include and model. That it didn't account for people cutting their hours or reduce their own wage. People will know whether they will be let go in x days. That management will talk with everyone over the week and give an indication whether it is likely that they will be let go to collect pledges what pay cut they could accept. Whether they have any ideas to help the companies situation (cost cuttings, release monthly from last months). Whether they intended to leave the company anyway. Then management crunches the numbers using options for savings and makes a few proposals including one of closing the entire company. And have the people decide. Everyone is given a print out how each option will affect them one what the options mean company wide. Then people vote via the Condorcet method. In case there are ties. Management will have to indentify key grievances and create some variants to fix those in the tied plans and have a second vote that day. Another round of Condorcet to eliminate all untied ones. Then instant run off in case of more ties. Those options should come with a profit share in case surplus profit emerges where people who took cuts or left the company against their will get some payout.

I am sure it is to late to fully set that up now but if i had to do such a large cut that is what i would want done.

Be honest, try to give them other options as soon as possible, give them a number their future potential employer can call. Maybe even write something

Put everyone on the equivalent of a month to month lease

Universal basic income.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com