Layoffs for Cost… not Cause:
A Subtle Form of Workplace Hostility? “Treat people with respect, you earn respect. Show them a guard and you have reasons to guard yourself. Hostility promotes hostility.” --Anonymous Unfortunately, over the last couple of decades “workplace violence” has become a common term in our lexicon. Immediately, people begin to think of “disgruntled” employees coming into work with “guns ablazin’.” As tragic and dramatic as these events are, the reality is that in actuality workplace homicide, as well as non-fatal assaults, has decreased significantly over the last decade. Further, coworker-to-coworker violence accounts for only about ten percent of the actual incidents. (1, 2, 3) The data reported by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics indicates that the number of layoffs and the number of individuals affected by them have increased by more than 50% over the past eight years to more than 1 million “initial claimants for unemployment” per year. (4) While impacting potentially hundreds of thousands of individuals each year, it should be examined whether the method of termination that has become common practice (and perhaps well intended) may be considered discriminatory and perhaps a subtle form of hostile behavior on the part of the workplace. While not all employers implement what this author calls the “show-them-the-door” method of termination, the scenario in many organizations may look something like this: The designated individuals are called into a conference room by a department head or supervisor, either one by one or as a group, and given a brief talk along with some forms or documents describing the terms of their discharge, benefits package, etc. Then the terminated employees are taken to their individual workstations, accompanied by a supervisor, security or other type of monitoring personnel. They are assisted with the packing of their personal effects and then ushered out of the company with a clear suggestion not to return to the workplace. For many organizations, this has become the “justifiably” standard process. When asked why such a method is employed, the responses are usually vague references to security and/or protection of intellectual property. At other times, there may be an expressed concern about the laid-off employee(s) becoming a physical or emotional disruption to the workplace. Others indicate that seeing laid-off employees “moping” around the office might have a demoralizing impact on the remaining workers. Upon further reflection, one might liken this orientation of treating all individuals as if they were potential criminals or people with an emotional disturbance, to the practice of racial profiling, i.e., responding to and/or classifying an entire group of people on the basis of the behavior of a very small percentage of that group. It is as if an organization operates by the philosophy: “You were a good and trusted employee yesterday but because today we decided to terminate you… we don’t trust you anymore and must treat you as a potential criminal.” Further, if the goal is to protect the other employees from the emotional turmoil of a layoff, one should question this methodology. Anecdotal information, as well as research, indicates that many employees feel great distress before, during and after a layoff or reorganization. In his book, Healing Thy Wounds, (5) David Noer labels the people who survive a layoff as “survivor-victims,” and describes their experience as akin, albeit on a lesser level, to people who survive trauma such as combat, the holocaust, etc. They are left with feelings of: survivor-guilt, anxiety about whether they will be next, hopelessness about the random nature of events, anger at the unfairness and seeming lack of purpose, etc. The surviving workers often become disorganized and demoralized which diminishes their productivity. Further, there is often more tension and conflict among the remaining workforce. So, as an antidote to the demoralization of the remaining workers, this is a failed method. In fact, this author has heard people describe a “lack of closure,” or “feeling the ghosts of the departed walking the halls” when their colleagues have been summarily dismissed. The next question is whether the “show-them-the-door” method actually provides an increased level of security. "There's always going to be the person who thinks, 'If they let me go, I'm going to make them pay,'" warns a research manager of Internet Security Software. “If he knows the company is in trouble, he could plant a Trojan or leave some malicious time bomb that could go off when his name appears on a layoff list. There have been a number of cases of people doing just that." (6) Or, as another IT Director wrote: “To safeguard the company from possible retaliation, even when an effort is being made to treat the employee fairly, all access to company resources should be disabled promptly upon termination. Further, in most cases, the employee should be given a brief period to pack his or her things, then asked to vacate the facility on the same day of termination. This is especially true in the case of IT professionals.” (7) Although there is no “hard data” to support the incidents of malicious behavior that warrant this method, one may speculate that it may provide a certain degree of security as regards the employees who are being laid off at that moment. However, one should consider that it is equally possible that those who remain and bear witness to this type of treatment of their colleagues may be putting together their own “bail out” package, should the same experience befall them. Further, it has been clearly acknowledged that there is an increasing trend between layoffs and wrongful termination litigation, and the associated legal expense must be considered. (8, 9) Perhaps, one of the most extreme examples of the potential fallout is described in this excerpt from the CIO website: (10).
As suggested in How To Avoid Litigation From Layoffs “Employees are less likely to sue if they are satisfied with their severance packages and you treat them with dignity and respect in the discharge process.” (11) In his book, I Don’t Want to Talk About It, Terrance Real describes two different types of trauma, “active” and “passive.” Put simply, active trauma is when we are hurt, be it physically or emotionally. Passive trauma is when, after being injured, we receive insufficient support, nurturance or kindness. Or, in fact, when we are further injured by being shamed, rejected or humiliated about the active trauma. (12) Examples to clarify how these two types of trauma interact are as follows: A child, injured during a Little League game, is reprimanded by his/her coach or parent about the error that was committed. Or, after surgery, a female cancer patient is rejected by her husband. Or, upon returning from combat, Viet Nam era soldiers were treated as “murderers.” Or, finally, an employee who is told that he is losing his job/income/identity experiences further humiliation by the aforementioned method of separating people from the workplace. While “reduction in force” has been common for many professional groups (i.e., construction, tourism, etc), it now is being utilized in many work organizations. In his book, The Future of Success, Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor under the Clinton Administration, reported that it has been only in the last 20-30 years that employees have been laid off for cost (rather than cause) on the scale that is now seen. (13) One may argue that this method, if not similar to profiling, is reactionary, possibly discriminatory and is borne out of a shortsighted concern for security and liability rather than a viable and comprehensive plan. Further, many forward-thinking companies have discovered that it is not necessary to use this method when letting go employees for cost… not cause. And, in 1989 the Federal government issued the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN). Briefly, “a covered employer must give notice if there is to be a mass layoff which does not result from a plant closing, but which will result in an employment loss at the employment site during any 30-day period for 500 or more employees, or for 50-499 employees if they make up at least 33% of the employer's active workforce. An employer who violates the WARN provisions by ordering a plant closing or mass layoff without providing appropriate notice, is liable to each aggrieved employee for an amount including back pay and benefits for the period of violation, up to 60 days.” (14) The Department of Labor continues on to suggest: “While this applies to large scale layoffs, it sets the tone and priority that employees must be given ample notification of job loss. With the WARN provision implemented, what does this do to the aforementioned security concerns? One may speculate that there should be even greater concern if it is a large-scale downsizing with respect to the aforementioned issues of security. Why shouldn’t the same priority be designated for smaller organizations or lesser numbers? It is therefore prudent for employers to weigh the desirability of advance notice against the possibility of expensive and time-consuming litigation to resolve disputes where notice has not been given. The Department encourages employers to give notice in all circumstances.” (15) When an organization is forced to downsize, it should be considered not just a fiscal crisis but also an emotional one that impacts all involved. The long-range influence on the total organization extends well beyond the departure of the designated employees. “Managing transition during organizational downsizing often means guiding employees through the "survivor syndrome" -- a post-traumatic disorder linked to survivors of major crisis situations. In order to avert the survivor syndrome, remaining employees must feel they are valued by management. Survivors tend to react more favorably when they believe that downsizing is being handled fairly. It is up to management to maintain that perception of fairness during times of transition. Providing employees with reasons for downsizing helps solidify trust between employees and management. Open and frank discussion is also crucial… All affected individuals should be notified well in advance.” (16). Recommendations: It goes without saying (but it must be said nonetheless), being laid off as a result of a downsizing or reorganization is an extremely stressful event for all involved. Certainly, for the employees who are being “let go,” there may be far-reaching financial, familial and emotional reactions for them as well as their family members. It has been noted that a percentage of people demonstrate a wide range of reactions to losing their jobs, including anger, shame, anxiety, depression, addictions, self- and other-directed hostility. Even for those not acutely impacted, the long-term stress of unemployment and the financial and relational difficulties that it may spawn can impact an entire family. Therefore, the following are some recommendations that may mitigate the impact for all employees.
A great example was reported in The Wall Street Journal, March 13, 2001: (17) When slow economic activities plagued… a small information technology firm, the executives decided to take a different approach to laying off employees. Instead of following in the footsteps of hundreds of other firms that simply slashed jobs across the board, provided skimpy severance packages, and offered little warning or preparation time to laid-off employees, Getronics decided to take a much more noble, kinder, and humane approach with its laid-off workers. After receiving coaching from an outplacement firm, (the) chief executive at Getronics, decided to develop a 50-day plan in order to prepare for the job losses. He and other top executives at the firm learned how to "break the news gently and deal with the layoff victims' emotional reactions." In addition the firm offered substantial amounts of severance pay and made sure that there was equity in the decisions made about the individuals who would be laid off---insuring that minorities and women were not disproportionally released. The total cost… including outplacement counseling and the cost to coach its executives, was approximately $150,000. This figure is small, considering the enormous payoff the firm received in just knowing that it took a more sensitive and caring approach to the concern and well being of their employees. 10. Provide consultation and training to supervisors of departments that have been affected by the cuts around personnel management strategies. As David Gershaw writes in his article, Surviving A Layoff: “When any transition occurs, supervisors' support of the workers is a critical factor. Workers need to have supervisors who are willing to listen and provide both emotional and practical support. When this occurs, both job performance and commitment to the organization among the workers are higher. If companies want the commitment of their employees, it would help to train their supervisors to provide support for the workers.” (18) Practice the 5 “As” of Organizational Recovery:
References:
Gerald Lewis, Ph.D. is the Director of COMPASS, providing Employee Assistance Programs, training and consultation to a wide range of employment settings. He is an international trainer and consultant and is the author of numerous articles and two books. |
|
||||||||||||||
