The myth of the ‘compassionate layoff’

Is it misguided to chase the goal of a layoff that sits well with every employee?

In a fluctuating labour market, mass layoffs continue to dominate the headlines.

The first wave of large-scale job cuts began with some of the biggest names in technology – including Google, Meta and Twitter – axing thousands of employees in the final months of 2022. And the layoffs have continued into the new year around the globe; tracker Layoffs.fyi has recorded 359 tech companies laying off more than 100,000 employees since January 2023, compared to about 160,000 positions cut in all of 2022. Now, however, layoffs are creeping into other sectors, including finance, media, automotive, retail and more.

As the economy remains precarious, layoffs show few signs of slowing. Many companies are reportedly expected to announce more layoffs due to financial uncertainty and declining revenues; others may likely conduct “copycat layoffs” – the practice of executives following suit when competitors conduct fresh rounds of layoffs. 

This means thousands of workers have found – and will find – themselves out of jobs. These workers will receive that news in a variety of ways. So far, company leaders have been all over the board in their implementation of and communication style around recent layoffs. As some bosses dig into justifications and go about different methods, a core question has arisen during these disparate layoff rollouts: which CEO has axed their workforce with ‘compassion’?

Experts say that there are more palatable and human-centric ways to lay off employees than others. But conversation has focused on the ideal of the ‘compassionate’ layoff. The question: is this an impossible ideal?

Perhaps it’s not about conducting the most ‘compassionate’ layoff – but rather acknowledging that an overarching ‘compassionate layoff’ simply doesn’t exist.

Mass email layoffs, Zoom firings and softer touches

The companies cutting employees are taking wildly varying approaches.

Workers have reported being axed via mass email, finding their building badges de-activated as they arrive at the office or being locked out of work laptops and messaging channels – often before they’ve even been told they’re out the door. The past couple years have also seen companies alerting large groups of employees that they’re being pushed out via video calls. In one of the most high-profile examples, US mortgage company Better drew outrage when, in December 2021, it fired 900 workers over Zoom.

Getty Images

Beyond the actual mechanisms of the layoffs, leaders have also taken different paths to communicating the changes. For instance, at Better, CEO Vishal Garg was blunt: "If you're on this call, you're part of the unlucky group being laid off,” he said. “Your employment here is terminated. Effective immediately." Some leaders have chosen contrasting modes, digging in deep on their explanations – in some cases taking personal responsibility, while others point to the health of the business’s bottom line.

Of course, the rise of remote work – and, subsequently, the virtual layoff – has added an unavoidable impersonal element to cutting workers, no matter the approach and message. Even so, say experts, there are ways to conduct layoffs that are more inherently ‘compassionate' than others.

For instance, says Jonathan Booth, associate professor of organizational behaviour and human resource management at the London School of Economics, experts generally agree that companies shouldn’t conduct email layoffs. The sudden, dashed-off quality of emailing only compounds the problem of workers feeling bewildered or as if their boss is hiding from them. It’s imperative that employers help staff “make sense of their situation, feel a bit more secure, and have some knowledge or perception that their employer and management do care,” says Booth. 

Employees left in the dark about why they lost their jobs tend to be more upset than others. US data from The Harris Poll and career-development company Intoo showed 48% of the 2,024 workers surveyed in its 2019 Layoff Anxiety Study reported that lack of information fuels layoff anxiety. 

Additionally, although not possible for every company, offering resources, such as job placement or coaching, or long severance packages, can mitigate the blow of a layoff. For US workers, who largely rely on employer-furnished private insurance, Booth says companies should offer “at the minimum assistance to their employees in the process for swifter access to government-provided unemployment benefits” in lieu of corporate coverage. 

Being honest about what a layoff really means

Still, conducting a compassionate layoff is not as simple as choosing one approach over another, or following a kind of layoff guidebook. In fact, the compassionate layoff may be a misguided, even unattainable concept stretching back to the days of the high-handed figurative ‘pink slip’.

“The term is a little bit far-fetched and buzzword-y, for sure,” says Jessica Kriegel, chief scientist of workplace culture at California-based Culture Partners, a corporate-coaching consultancy. “To lay off your people is the end of a work relationship. When relationships end, you end a claim to active empathy with the other person. Leaders who claim empathy with those they are laying off are not being honest with themselves about their role.”

Indeed, a core issue is that the idea of a compassionate layoff overall is extremely subjective – especially in a remote-first world, where there’s little precedent about what ‘works’.

For instance, what might be seen as “thoughtful and transparent” or “exemplary” to one axed worker may still be unsavoury to another; and other methods labelled as “an absolute no-go” may not sting for every laid-off employee. Even CEOs cutting their own compensation – an oft praised move – may feel like an empty gesture.

Similarly, Kriegel says while some workers may bristle at a video layoff, she can also imagine that Gen Zers and those who are more digitally fluent may actually prefer the opportunity to duck out of the awkwardness of a Zoom chat, and into their bedrooms, rather than experience it in the flesh, squeezed into a narrow office.

Additionally, Kriegel says certain industries tend to be more “touchy-feely” in talking out layoffs, while others believe in “ripping off the Band-Aid”. But which is better is ultimately up to the individual. “It’s the same with people ending romantic relationships,” she says. “Some want to sit and talk, some want to get in and get out as quickly as possible.” In this way, the idea of a universally compassionate layoff may be an impossible reality.

‘People being laid off are humans and not resources’

If a compassionate layoff doesn’t exist, what does that mean? Perhaps, suggest experts, it’s a question of compassion amid layoffs, rather than identifying one sweeping approach and strategy that can work for every now-former employee.

Foremost, says Booth, employees need to feel that leaders are doing more than paying them “lip service”. “Employees should be instructed why they are being laid off, and this should be done in a personable, empathic way,” he says. And, if possible, he says they should be conducted face to face. “All related communication should be transparent, with full disclosure of information, and needs to be delivered in a timely manner.” 

Transparency is a major factor, too, says Kriege. She says she pushes leaders to be more forthcoming, including informing teams “the literal second” they know layoffs are coming. The knowledge provides workers a level of autonomy, including foresight to look for other work before they’re laid off. This divulgence is something leaders struggle with, she notes, since they often worry about coming off as “soft”.

Getty Images

Pivoting away from a holistically ‘compassionate layoff’, then, may help steer companies and employees alike to something more practical and employee focused.

Kriegel favours the term “transparent separation”, citing a Harvard Business Review column that urges bosses to be as open as possible about what’s actually going on. Similarly, ‘accountability’, which has come into vogue in business and leadership discussions, suggests not just reports who hold themselves accountable for results, but also managers who can account for reasonings behind layoffs and recognize the skewed power dynamic between themselves and the person being let go. The burden of responsibility cuts both ways.

Still, even these new words can come up against the same nebulous language that ‘compassion’ suffers from: labels and their connotations are open to interpretation, both by the leaders speaking and the employees on the receiving end.

Instead of re-branding or re-framing the term, the biggest piece of a ‘compassionate’ layoff may be more nuanced: recognising the event is fundamentally a human moment.

“[Compassion] implies remembering that the people being laid off are humans and not resources, and treating them as humans and not resources,” says Dan Cable, professor of organizational behaviour at London Business School. “This would have implications for how information is communicated (respectfully, treating as we would want to be treated), how long people have to adapt to the information and whether there are resources for helping people find new work.”

Just as different people have different ideal working methods, there is no one-size-fits-all fix to the layoff. And, ultimately, the ‘compassion’ label itself may not be as important as understanding the personal nuances among affected individuals. The means by which people are laid off are constantly changing, yet the centring of human dignity in the process is timeless.