A Compilation of Euphemisms for Layoffs

I thought it would be instructive to list the euphemisms for layoffs generated by my last post. Thanks so much for all the great -- and troubling -- contributions.  It is quite a testimony to the human ability for self-deception and obfuscation.  Here they are:   

Adjusting to shifts in demand

Corporate outplacing

Cost improvement plans

Fitness plan

"He got the box."

Made redundant

"Non-essential" employees

Offboarded

Rationalizing

Rebalancing  the level of human capital

Re-engineering plan

Reduction in force

Rightsizing

Simplified

Smartsizing

Special forces philosophy

Streamlining

"We've decided to go in another direction"

I especially liked this contrast between management and employee language about how the process is carried out:

Management:

We're letting you go

We're terminating your position 

Your position is redundant

Employees:

He was shit-canned.

He got whacked.

He got walked to the door

I am also taken with “Special forces philosophy” because it suggests that someone at Tesla (where this was used) is suffering from a serious case of self-delusion. The someone, by the way, is Chairman Elon Musk.  Check out the link to his announcement.  His statement is troubling because, although the language is obfuscated, he is implying that the people he is letting go are the weaker ones, even though many of Tesla's problems clearly stem from errors made by senior management (including Musk) and from the the economic environment.  Note the statement, "One of the steps I will be taking is raising the performance bar at Tesla to a very high level, which will result in a modest reduction in near term headcount. To be clear, this doesn’t mean that the people that depart Tesla for this reason wouldn’t be considered good performers at most companies – almost all would. However, I believe Tesla must adhere more closely to a special forces philosophy at this stage of its life if we aspire to become one of the great car companies of the 21st century."  This reminds of a case study I did years ago of the layoffs at Atari, when after the first round of layoffs, the CEO told everyone something like, "The company is strong now, we got rid of all the bad people."

And I liked Mike’s comment that “Euphemisms aside, the bigger issue is not how to handle layoffs, but rather how to avoid them.” Check out his post where he points out, and questions why, “Reducing headcount in an economic downturn is almost a Pavlovian response for many executives.”

P.S. Sim's comment is intriguing and scary  I'm in the middle of "synergy-related headcount restructuring" which also sounds pretty cute - until you get hit on the head with it.

Comments

[Steve]

Overhead reduction
Aligning costs with revenue

[Irving]

An Oldie but Goodie -- We're redeploying you... into the general workforce."

Today's Legal Speak; when the law firm call's you in for the bad news -- "Redundancy Consultations"

[LayoffGossip]

People always hate to talk about when they are laid off. But as it has become every day's news headline since Yahoo started it with cutting 1500 of its task force last year, now a need of platform has been in demand where people can express their selves in words how they are feeling about their company, whey the got laid off was that justified or not.
And every thing they want to tell anonymously.And www.layoffgossip.com is providing you that platform.

[Patti]

Thank you for so many of your insightful comments and sharing so many phrases.

With the market as is, fear is cloaking the keen eye of leaders to strike while the iron is hot - some for very strong financial reasons, but some by using the "excuse" of the market to force 'efficiency'. Perhaps that efficiency is long overdue, perhaps not... The losers in all of this are not only the people "fired" but also those people left behind. The lack of organizational planning to support the employees left behind is shocking.

I offer great thanks to those brave managers who tell it like it is, deal with firing or laying off employees with integrity and with a human side, and who diligently work hard to build strategies that avoid layoffs!

I have to say, I read your book over a year ago (The No Asshole Rule) and promptly recommended it or purchased it for almost everyone I know.

[Mike Myatt]

Hi Bob:

I appreciate the mention and I'm glad you enjoyed the thoughts...

Wally:

While I think you and I are aligned in principle, I bow to your superior choice of phrasing...

[sim]

I'm in the middle of "synergy-related headcount restructuring" which also sounds pretty cute - until you get hit on the head with it.

[James B]

I think you may be simplifying the problem a little too much.

Many businesses scale service with people. The more people, the more clients can be serviced.

If the number of clients suddenly decreases, for whatever reason, then the people left servicing those clients have a lot less to do.

Get to a certain point and the people you're keeping literally have nothing to do except take home a paycheque.

How do you structure the business to deal with this?

[Brad]

"He got the boot," but this may refer to a for-cause firing rather than a layoff.

"Reduce the headcount," is borderline, I suppose.

[John C]

In Australia (and presumably the UK) a slang term for losing your job is: "getting the sack" or "being sacked". When many lose their jobs we talk about "mass sackings"

[Wally Bock]

I think that Mike's got it right except for the phrasing. It's not about "avoiding layoffs" it's about "preserving the workforce intact." This is vital in a Knowledge Economy. What's more, there are some role models in how to do this. Lincoln Electric and Nucor are two. Other companies, like Toyota, do so, but only for "permanent workers."