The Language and Symbols of Downsizing

So the bloodletting continues. Layoffs keep on keeping on. Today, the current culprit is IBM, the company that falsely laid claim to "lifetime employment," and their lemming-like employees fell for it. But what I am concerned about is how these things are communicated. I must admit that corporations have become smarter and more sensitive over the last 15 years. (I was spoiled by the progressive attitudes of General Electric. (So you don't think of me as an uncritical chauvinist, let me say that I was laid off by GE, so I have reason to be critical, even resentful, of the company. Still, I think highly of their internal communications and of GE overall.) But there is still plenty of room for improvement. If you are in an organizations that is downsizing, and you're responsible for a function like communication, human resources, productivity, or morale, ask yourself these questions:

• What kind of language is the company using to describe the action? Layoffs are tough enough on people and their communities. To couch them in corporate-speak such as "rightsizing the workforce" is insulting. Tell the public that your revenues have decreased! Say that you missed your sales target! Describe how you f****d up the business! And then tell them how you will make things right with future actions. For God's sake, have respect for their intelligence.
  
• Are your officers visible to the workforce at this time? Amazing how many open meetings there are when things are going swimmingly for a company, but the bosses disappear during tough times. How much will they trust you in the future if you can't trust them with bad news? The greatest leaders in history, such as Truman and Churchill, described how true leadership was based on how important it was to acknowledge the hell that their people were in, and then lay out the exit route.
  
• Have you announced no raises this year for hoi polloi this year, yet execs received their bonuses? Yuk, bad form there. This "let them eat cake" attitude will come back to bite you eventually in the form of loyalty or quality of the people you attract.
  
  And all of these considerations lead to a very big question...
  
  
• Have you considered the true costs of layoffs? Geoff Colvin writes a terrifically succinct article in Fortune magazine that describes the hidden costs of layoffs, such as letting go future leaders of the company, the downsizing of morale, and the eventual costs of rehiring. (Many people don't think of that. Economies do turn around. When that happens, what will be your company's reputation in the marketplace for qualified employees?) Even the much-vaunted GE suffered from that. Their Financial Management Program is well-regarded in Corporate America. In many circle, having "FMP" after your name is equal to "CPA." However, during the Jack Welch era, many graduates left the program upon graduation saying, "The company has already declared I'm expendable. Why should I stay?" To GE's credit, they took their lumps and realized that this was a fair reaction.

I really believe that corporate leaders are generally better at these things. But there are still enough outliers out there to make these points worth repeating.