Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

I've been through the dotcom bust, where my company went through 6 layoffs in a single year. We went from 1400 to about 600. I survived them, but it was a terrible experience, and after a while, people stopped working and just gossiped about the next layoff.

First off, if you're going to do layoffs, make sure it's one and done. This means, probably cutting more than you have to so that you don't have to keep making layoffs in 6 months, etc. The quicker you can get back to hiring, the better it will be for morale.

Layoff your lowest performers first. If you don't, then your top performers will leave you, and you will get crippled within less than a year. Don't do something like ask everyone to take a paycut, because it means that your top performers suffer just as much as your low performers. You should get rid of your low performers quickly.

Try to give as generous a severance package that you can. And meet with each of them face-to-face if possible, but with several dozen it's probably impossible.

Make it quick and let them leave with dignity. That means let them say bye to their friends, and making sure that every single question they may have answered. COBRA, unvested options, Unemployment benefits, etc. Personally I wouldn't escort them out or lock their accounts unless you think that they are going to cause problems. Hopefully they won't.

Do all the layoffs before lunch. Have a meeting with the rest of the company after the layoffs, after lunch and explain why you had to do it, and explain your plan to ensure that it doesn't happen again.

Never tell the employees how YOU feel. No one cares.



view as:

Great advice. I'm not sure I could add anything more except maybe that the people you are laying off are going to take this personally. If the layoffs were not due to them, assure them that is was not about their individual performance. Also, if its possible, be willing to be a recommendation for them. That will confirm for them that it was not necessarily them and it will assure future employers that you didn't use PE just as a way to let go underperforming staff

Sorry to hear it -- I'm sure it's eating away at you. I'm a founder who's had to do it too, in the past. It never gets easier; you just get better at it.

I agree with @steven2012's feedback. To add a few things:

1) I'd recommend you work with your attorneys to draft up a termination agreement that includes a severance package. I'd also recommend you cut a check and include it with the letter. When you sit them down to talk them through the agreement (individually), you can present check to them and ask them to sign it and take the check. You don't want to force them into signing anything, but you also do want to try to get it done cleanly and completely for the sake of the business moving forward. If they hesitate or say they want to review the terms later, or with an attorney, don't push it. But do make the check large enough that it'll be easy for them to sign on the spot if at all possible -- you want to treat them fairly and not have to deal with loose ends later if you can help it.

2) It's extremely important to take the "one and done" deeper cut approach. There's nothing worse than everyone wondering when the other shoe is going to drop. I'd recommend you take the remaining team out to lunch and make sure they know that they are safe -- and you all have to rally together to make the company a success.

As an aside -- the only regret I've ever had is waiting to fire people that I knew had to go. Learning to be more aggressive about moving under-performers out faster has been one silver lining from the whole process, over time.

Good luck. It's a terrible foreboding feeling going into it, but you'll fee a big sense of relief afterwards, and if the employees you're letting go are unhappy in their jobs, they may end up thanking you later for helping them move on to find something they loved more.


Try not to make people sign anything the same day you lay them off, and definitely don't put a check in front of them like you're trying to entice them.

Unfortunately enticement is literally the purpose of the check. You're required to exchange value in order for them to agree to not sue the company. When I had to do my first firing I was surprised that this was the case but our lawyers insisted that we had to offer someone thing of value (can be a check or shares) in exchange for signing a termination document.

As for getting them to sign the same day, don't drag anything out. Just get it over with so both parties can move on. It's a terrible experience on both sides (unless one side is an asshole or doesn't care about the company.)


Unfortunately enticement is literally the purpose of the check. You're required to exchange value in order for them to agree to not sue the company. When I had to do my first firing I was surprised that this was the case but our lawyers insisted that we had to offer someone thing of value (can be a check or shares) in exchange for signing a termination document.

In contract law, the general term for that concept (i.e. each party being required to "give" something for the contract to bind) is consideration, and it derives from common law.

For example, if I contract you to build my company a web app, my consideration is the agreed payment, and your consideration is delivery of the web app as agreed.

This is also presumably why those tech CEOs who work for a "$1" annual salary aren't just doing it for $0 instead. Because, traditionally, for an employment contract to be valid, there must be consideration from both parties (the employee gives their labour, the company pays the salary).

The exact rules depend upon the jurisdiction, and nature of the specific situation. Some legal systems don't even require it at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration


There are a number of comments saying things like, "get them to accept the check on the spot," "entice them to sign the severance agreement quickly," "make sure they sign it fast before they change their minds and get a lawyer," etc. This is bad advice.

It is true that you should get them to sign an agreement that contains, among other things, a "general release" that basically says that they promise not to sue you for any reason. It is also true that to be enforceable, you must give something of value (i.e., "legal consideration"), and the severance pay is usually the principal consideration for such an agreement.

I would be extremely cautious, however, about getting someone to sign quickly. It seems to make sense on the face of it (get them to sign away their right to sue before they contemplate getting an attorney). But there is a flip side that no one is mentioning. If you shock someone by calling them into your office and telling that they're losing their job, put a legal document in front of them that they probably won't completely understand (it's going to have a laundry-list of statutory provisions that they need to expressly waive), put a check in front of them and say "here, sign this now!" you're going to unnecessarily jeopardize the enforceability of the release. The ex-employee's lawyer will argue that it was signed under duress and without sufficient knowledge, understanding and consent to constitute a valid waiver of the right to pursue certain claims.

Also, depending on the worker's age, there might be additional complications. The Older Worker's Benefit Protection Act applies to employees over 40, and requires the terminated employee be given 21 days to consider the release and 7 days afterward to change their mind. (The 21 days increases to 45 if there are two or more employees being terminated.) Although this particular statutory requirement doesn't apply to those under 40, it underscores the notion that allowing someone to consider a severance agreement for some amount of time and have the opportunity to discuss it with their own attorney if desired are both good things when it comes to enforcing the agreement. How long you give them is a matter of balancing numerous statutory and common law considerations (both state and federal) with the goal of getting them to sign quickly, and there are avenues, regardless of age, for their attorney to attack the validity of the release if they sign it without properly understanding and consenting to its terms.

I should also point out that severance agreements should always be prepared by an attorney. There are numerous considerations that vary state-to-state; there are specific waivers that need to be contained in them; there are different rules depending on the number of employees; possible notice requirements (in which case the severance might be designated as compensation in lieu thereof); rules about timing of final payments; whether or not benefits are paid out; etc.


> I wouldn't ... lock their accounts unless you think that they are going to cause problems.

I'm not sure exactly what accounts you have in mind, but general I would lock them all, no matter what. You may trust them to not retaliate, but do you trust them to have chosen a password that they didn't use anywhere else and didn't get keylogged and didn't give to phishers, and that their account will not be compromised in any other way?

Maybe email is tricky, since they could potentially have some personal stuff they want to retrieve. Perhaps the helpdesk can assist them in that case; or give them 5 days or so where they can still access email.

(If it matters, I have zero experience in this, just an interest in security.)

Edit: I now see you probably meant just giving something like the rest of the day on the lock, if you trust them.


I think he/she just means a surprise account lock followed by the you're fired meeting. [ala finance industry]

You would obviously close off all credentials once they're out the door.


I worked for a place that notified an entire team they were laid off by locking them out of exchange. When individuals couldn't login they talked to peers and figured out what had happened 2+ hours before HR started talking to them. That company was all class.

My current company just had layoffs and most people found out when HR left the firing lists sitting face up on top of the copier to go to the restroom. I survived and I'm still trying to figure out if I want to bail too. I was pretty upset that as recently as 3 weeks ago we were asked to help recruit friends for a senior java architect position, and one of the laid-off engineers had only been at the company 7 weeks. It's just not right to fuck with people like that.


>I survived and I'm still trying to figure out if I want to bail too

Layoffs come in rounds. Just because you survived one round means no guarantees on the second or third rounds.


Ha, I didn't know that happens. Yes, definitely leave it open until you talk to them, and for however long you allow them to say goodbye and tie up loose ends. The greater context of what the original comment said seems to match up with what you're saying, but I didn't fully understand it.

I always find it interesting how paranoid people are about this, coming from a country (Norway) where you not only generally have the right to 3 months notice, but also have the right to continue working during your notice period (a result of seeing work as a right and requiring very compelling reasons to take your work away). There are exceptions, such as e.g. if you're fired for cause, but they are quite limited.

In reality, it causes few problems - people likely to do something malicious probably already did it behind your back anyway.


Yes, same thing in Germany. The relationship in the US between employee and employer seems very hostile from our point of view, full of fear, mistrust, and legal issues. But I guess it only seems that way, due to cultural differences?

No, you have it right; that's your average employee/employer relationship in the US, it is basically hostile.

No, it actually is that way. And one party has a disproportionately vested interest in maintaining that hostility.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't saying to leave them unlocked indefinitely. Some companies lock accounts as soon as they lay people off (or even before), because they're paranoid that someone will grab trade secrets or sabotage something. Treating people this was is really insulting. It's generally reasonable to let people retain access for a short period of time (i.e. the rest of the day) so they can do things like send goodbye emails to the team, grab the e-tickets (or whatever) that they had sent to their work address instead of their personal address. No one should expect their accounts to remain unlocked for long, but long enough to close out any open threads and say goodbye is just being respectful.

Ever been in a roomful of people waiting for a suddenly-called all hands meeting, and seeing a whole bunch of people with their phones out wondering why their email isn't checking, then seeing their wifi credentials stop working, then the lightbulb going off in their heads?

(That was a fun day...)


A lot of people will even want to wrap up and pass off their work in as controlled a way as possible, even having just been laid off.

Only professionals would want to do that. ;-)

I would say that in this case... the personal stuff should have stayed off of the work email.

I'd rather leave a company knowing that my accounts were locked, than not. If it's locked, I have more confidence that I wouldn't be accused of doing something seedy when packing up.


Shoulda woulda coulda. Yes, people shouldn't send things to work, but they do. All the time. Especially so if the event happens after work, for example. Or maybe it's part of an overarching todo list you store in Exchange. Or maybe you have a few documents in OneNote which are personal but you hadn't had time to send them to yourself. It happens quite frequently. The implication is also that the account will get locked, for example, at the end of the day, so they can wait until the end of the day and then see their account locked and leave.

Also, if you have a non-compete on the employment agreement. Do the right thing and nullify that agreement. If they go to your competitor, you have no one to blame but yourself. A non-compete does nothing from sharing secrets. Confidentiality agreement prevents that. (That is advice from a lawyer)

I'm not sure if I agree with you on the saying the good byes. Linkedin is a bit better than that. The worst thing you can do is send them back to their desk to backup and make the announcement while they're packing.


> Also, if you have a non-compete on the employment agreement. Do the right thing and nullify that agreement.

They OP may not have the ability to nullify employment agreements. They may have the ability to not enforce them post layoff.


> They may have the ability to not enforce them post layoff.

That means nothing to the person being laid off. By not removing that restriction you're still putting the threat on the individual.


> That means nothing to the person being laid off. By not removing that restriction you're still putting the threat on the individual.

No one forced them to sign the employment agreement in the first place.

2nd, it's protection for the company. Outside of backdoor collusion between large silicon valley companies, and key hires, how often do you see non compete agreements enforced?

For your rank and file, rarely ever. Companies don't have infinite resources to sink into litigation, especially if they have to have layoffs to reduce costs.


You won't see them enforced. Because they're enforced by an express court that stops the current employer from working with you.

TLDR Talk to a lawyer. They know their shit.


That's a good one! However, I'd like to say if there is a very good severance paid (golden parachute) than a non compete is OK in my eyes. If you can't afford a great severance, than by all means, make life as easy as possible for your employees and remove anything that can block them getting rehired. These are real things you can do instead of just saying "oh sorry, I'm laying you off, I feel so bad, yada yada yada"..

I'd be surprised if a non-compete was enforceable in a layoff situation. It is another thing if they quit on their own, or maybe if they were fired for cause.

Talk with a lawyer. However, if you're not in CA or a place where non-competes aren't valid: They can be enforced. It's shitty, but that's business.

In a situation like this though, it can probably be thrown out for lack of consideration. You'd also probably have a decent suit for damages as well: if a company hires you with a non-compete and then dumps you on the street because it can no longer meet it's contractual obligations to you, but still prevents you from earning a wage through an onerous contract (which they unilaterally terminated) causing real damages to your lifetime earnings.

You'd think. A lawyer will tell you this: "I'm not a magician. You signed the contract."

Well if the OP has to do lay-offs, they probably are going to get legal advice. If Legal tells them the non-compete becomes invalid in cases of lay-offs, then at the very least it's nice to inform the laid-off person about this. If it doesn't automatically become so, follow the previous poster's advice and if possible, nullify it.

Non-competes are generally null and void as soon as they go into the contract and could even imperil the entire document.

Respectfully, while this is true in some areas, it is absolutely not true across the US that they are null and void, nor is it necessarily true that the inclusion of a non-compete will have a bearing on severability.

what kind of explanation do you give for the layoffs ? how would you make the top performers stay back - do you talk about how the ones that were let go were dragging down the company ? or do you talk about revenue targets not met, etc

Your advice is very humane and sensitive but it's definitely siding with the employees and not the employer. If you're an executive at that company in charge of doing the lay off, this is terrible advice.

Not trying to be heartless here, just trying to point out that there are two sides to all stories, including tragic ones.


If you're going to call the advice terrible, you should provide some rationale.

Fair enough.

> You don't want to force them into signing anything,

Actually, you do. The more you give the employee a chance to mull over the whole thing, the more likely they are to lawyer up and hit you with a wrongful termination lawsuit. As the employer, I'd go one step further and if the CFO has allowed for a severance package of n dollars, I would initially offer them 90% of n if they sign right away and if they don't, give them the full n. Anything to get things settled right here, right now, in the room.


This is very interesting to me. Does that mean that if I'm ever in the unfortunate position of being fired I should not sign anything and lawyer up? Or if I feel like I don't mind signing right away, should I bargain very hard "I'll sign it here and we'll be done but you'll have to give me 150% of what you are offering"?

I think what he's saying goes along with not being a sucker and taking the first offer without first finding out your negotiating position. Hold out a little, or a lot, depending on your counterpart. If nothing else, it's probably good to say "I'm not sure I'm comfortable signing this on such short notice, can I have a few hours to think about it?" and gauge their response. You might immediately make a few extra bucks for just being aware of your options.

Most important is probably knowing the company and the individual you are dealing with. It's easy for people to misconstrue aggression as anger, which may or may not help your case.


> Never tell the employees how YOU feel. No one cares.

This is really important advice. Telling them how you feel trivializes their loss and pain. It is also extremely selfish, because it has nothing to do with making their situation better it has to do with you trying to selfishly overcome your own guilt. Only a jerk would do that when someone just got fired.


I think it's okay to express gratitude. And other feelings, maybe. It just depends on how it's said, and whether you're self-centered about it or empathetic. It's like breaking up with someone. If an employee says that they enjoyed working with you and they're going to miss you, it's totally appropriate to respond in kind. Just don't whinge and draw all the attention to yourself.

I understood this to be referring to saying something like, "I feel really bad about having to let you go..." or something to that effect.

It's fine to express how you feel about them and working together, but not how you feel about firing them.


In general I believe that there are no hard and fast rules about the expression of feelings in life. I agree that going on about all the emotional agony you went through to make the decision is worse than useless, but expressions of remorse like "I'm sorry it didn't work out" are totally fine in my opinion. A statement like "It's not personal, we had to make a business decision, and it wasn't easy." also communicates that the employee is not totally expendable, if that happens to be true, while also communicating personal concern.

If you're laying off the worst performs, as you should be, then it is personal.

By personal I meant for reasons not related to one's ability or importance to the company, such as being unlikable. Firing the worst performs is for professional reasons, not personal ones.

This is good advice and continues to apply to the meeting/discussion with those NOT getting laid off. There is simply no way for you to pass on how bad you feel and have it come off well. I recall vividly a VP going on and on about how hard the day had been for him, and just thinking, man, keep digging yourself in deeper... it hurt to watch and I never regained respect.

In addition, don't complain about anything either. I once got laid off (without the manager being direct), and the manager complained about his email going to blow up as a result of a touchy situation. Once I figured out what happened, I lost a massive amount of respect - anyone who is going to complain about something small when letting someone go does not deserve to be a manager. Such a drastic lack of empathy or awareness of the situation shows a profound lack of leadership skills from the selfishness.

> Personally I wouldn't escort them out or lock their accounts unless you think that they are going to cause problems.

Hopefully you have a corporate policy regarding this. Ours is to lock access to accounts within 30 minutes of notification. It's just the best policy to have a uniform approach that is applied evenly.

For emails, have it autoforward to an IT monitored, or your own account. Occasionally you may have an employee who needs access to something via an account that is tied to their work email.


I have been on the "survived" side of layoffs a number of times and on the other side once. I agree with almost everything here except the "not lock them out of accounts" part.

As much as it sucks, you have to do this asap. While most people will behave most of the time, getting laid off is one of those times where everything goes a little out of focus and people make dumb decisions without thinking things through. They may do it in a way that only reflects on them but quite often it can reflect on the company and sow more doubt and fear in the organization.

I think the most important part for going forward is the first meeting post-layoffs. Rumors will be forming, tensions will be high, and some people will still be texting with the friend you just fired. This will be the best - and potentially only - time to kill some of those wild ideas before they become rumors.


I had to do this many times and the advice from steven2012 is gold. Do it personally, do it with dignity. It is important for those who stay as most likely you will be laying off some of their friends. Do everything you can to allow those who need to go to save their face.

Legal | privacy