So how’d it go?
I bolded your presumption all companies handle it this way.
And your logic is circular: Companies shock-layoff for good reason – how do we know? Because companies do it!
No doubt it can happen. But you can address this by keeping database backups, which presumably is already being done. And if they make insulting outbound calls, or hassle co-workers? Just fire them. Regardless, even the freak occurance you describe is considerably less damaging than what I described – having your best talent leave.
There’s a limit on how much trouble someone can cause when they’re laid off. I suppose they could just wreck shit, but then they’re criminally liable, and they could still do that after being laid off anyway.
Your sentence is an example circular logic. Unfortunately for you, that’s not what bahimiron said. He said that companies do it for good reason - and that reason is that bad things have happened in the past. THAT IS NOT CIRCULAR LOGIC. Okay. I can stop twitching now.
Ah, I see that was a bit ambiguous. The circular part isn’t why they lay off – but that it is necessary.
Moreover, the “have been burned” part is weak, as most companies haven’t been burned, and can easily protect themselves from supposedly dire consequences like database corruption. Companies primarily do it for greed, and because they treat their employees like chattel, aided by a cursory, short-sighted, and knee-jerk assessment of actual risk.
So that’s another instance of circular logic: Companies shock lay-off because of the risk, and we know it’s risky because companies do it. Is it actually more risky than layoff with notice? That’s not at all clear.
It’s called risk management. People are unpredictable. A company is going to protect their assets under any means possible.
Employees are known to show riskier behavior if they know they are going to be fired. By restricting the amount of time employees are under this condition, companies are offsetting the risk to their assets. If there is even a chance that the employee will sabotage $$$$ of information, client relations, anything valuable really, the company wants to prevent that.
It may seem cold, overly logical, robotic blah blah blah, but yes, at that point, the companies assets are more valuable than the feelings of a layed off employee.
Sorry, it sucks, I know it sucks. And I would probably be bitter too if it happened to me, but that’s the way it goes. Life isn’t all that fair.
Even that bolded part doesn’t indicate a presumption on my part that all companies handle it that way. The intent was to state that human resources in a company that does handle it that way would handle it that way for the reasons stated. I apologize that I did not make that clear, but considering the context (such as people in this very thread specifically stating that their companies do not handle it that way) I figured it was fairly obvious.
Once again, no circular logic there. The logic is ‘there is a potential, though small, for a bad experience should we give people advance warning, as such it is the best thing for the company to not give people advance warning’. If you’re seeing circular logic there, you’re gonna have to break it down a little bit more explicitly, so I can more explicitly explain to you why you’re wrong.
I can appreciate that you don’t agree with my point, but my logic is sound. Sound enough that apparently the original poster works at a place that has come to the same conclusion. And you’re acting like kind of a dickhead about it.
But is it good risk management? Perhaps the damage from botched morale is hard to measure or predict, but it can be at least as substantial. I’ve known too many good businessmen who didn’t run their affairs so impersonally to believe it’s in anyway necessary – in the end it’s primarily a reflection of how the bosses want to run things.
Note that I’m not bitter because it happened to me; I was actually relieved to have severance and unemployment, didn’t want to wait around, and was pissed enough to have quit had I not been on the list. I am bitter because of the aftermath I saw other people suffer through.
If people are losing their jobs - no matter how it happens - morale is already circling the drain.
Oh, I’m absolutely being a dickhead about it. Shock layoffs are a dickhead thing to do, and I see no reason to be polite or just let the status quo rest. This is a bullshit trend that needs to reverse.
You’re fooling yourself if you think this attitude isn’t prevalent amongst workers, and that any remaining employees will happily agree, “Hey it’s just business, nothing personal!”.
Except I’m not firing anyone. I’m just saying that I understand why it might be done that way. So crawl outta my ass about it.
I don’t doubt for a second that attitude is prevalant amongst workers but that’s not an adequate reason to change how it’s done. The risks to the business are real, people do behave unpredictably when they’ve been laid off, and those consequences are more serious than bad morale (which is already likely quite low). Those risks trump bad feelings. It sucks but it makes sense.
I’m not sure I agree. There’s security to be found in knowing it’s not you, that if it were you’d at least have enough warning to handle it gracefully, and that your let-go friends haven’t been shafted.
Obviously, people won’t be happy – but there’s a big difference between wishing things were better and talent flight.
Not a chance. You don’t like it? Don’t defend the practice. The acceptance that this is a normal way to handle affairs is what has let the trend grow.
I don’t see the potential upsides you describe outweighing the risks of an angry, unhinged ex-employee wreaking havoc.
Managing employee morale is one of those thing that you think they’d teach in business school or something, but they don’t. From what I can tell, the main trick is to get people to understand why they no longer have a job, to minimize the sudden emotional response.
- Alan
The risks are exaggerated (oh no! We had to tape restore the database! Joe was rude to everyone after he found out, we had to fire him!), and the risks of making morale even worse amount to considerably more than “bad feelings”. Consider also the benefits of having a good reputation when you later want to hire again.
You make this sound like some sort of obvious conclusion from hard data, but there is no hard data. I can buy there can indeed be substantial damage from a laid-off employee flipping out, but not that it’s obviously worse and so therefore shock-layoffs are some sort of financial necessity. At best, risk-wise it looks like a wash – which argues strongly for doing the right thing.
Wreaking havoc? Like what? I’ve known tons of people who’ve been laid off, and have heard of exactly one bad experience, described up-thread – and it wasn’t that bad. What sorts of havoc are you expecting?
Talent flight when you treat your employees badly on the other hand is a very real, tangible, and potent risk. As is having your entire workforce demoralized and, if you’re lucky, working at half productivity.
Alright, you appear to be arguing entirely from a point of rage, so I’m gonna go ahead and back off.
OP, I hope it works out well for you and I’m sorry it’s a position you’ve been put in. I’ve had to fire someone before, but that was a performance issue, not a sudden lay off, so I really have no idea what this must be like. It sucks for everyone involved.
I’ve had to fire a few people . . . well, more like just let them go, I guess . . . laid off? None of them were for cause (the ones I’ve personally fired). Just time to go, need to save billing hours or their skills didn’t fit the next phase of the project, whatever.
One guy was this big black tough ( thought) guy and he cried like a baby. It was really sad and shook me up the rest of the weekend.