Editorial
This is the first in a series of three articles reflecting on the brain-based implications of how organizations and leaders approach layoffs. The piece focuses on the human need for autonomy; the follow-on articles will focus on empathy and trust.
The business decision to separate people from organizations is exactly that — a business decision. So I want to be clear this article is not intended as a judgment on the strategic decision to reshape the size, structure or focus of an organization. What discourages me is how poorly layoffs are implemented. When the rationale is clear, employees are capable of understanding these decisions, even if they really hate the outcome.
Second, this article is not intended to address performance management processes or individual low performers. The ability for an employee to succeed within an organization is a high context conversation, uniquely about that one person. Layoffs are not a substitute for performance management and the two processes should not be conflated.
How Should We Think of Autonomy at Work?
Autonomy at work does not mean being left alone to do whatever you want, whenever you want, with no responsibility to your fellow colleagues. It simply means designing work processes and policies that enable as much individual choice as possible, balanced by the need for collective organizational success. The poster child for this over the last two years has been the debate (and sometime battle) over physically returning to the office. There are sound arguments to be made on both sides — the need to support individual flexibility balanced by the need to foster organizational culture. Here’s how I suggest we think of it …
Autonomy is the human need to direct one’s own life
and is often referred to as self-governance.
Choice is essential to autonomy, and autonomy is essential to well-being.
From what I’ve observed, read and personally experienced, layoffs may be one of the least human-centric processes in the world of work, as they effectively strip away almost all certainty and autonomy from an employee.
Do any of these layoff descriptors sound familiar?
- Notifications were sudden and unexpected.
- Meaningful context was not shared to understand “why.”
- Decision processes lacked transparency.
- Colleagues were rapidly disconnected, both interpersonally and technologically.
- Little or no time was given to transition work responsibilities.
- Rumors accelerated in lieu of purposeful communications.
- Managers were given zero opportunity to brief their team of their own exit.
- Exiting colleagues were not encouraged to apply for existing, open roles.
- Leaders avoided direct conversations and seemingly disappeared.
- Peers attempted to fill the awkward gap by expressing sympathy.
- Remaining colleagues were left wondering “Am I next?”
Best case, this describes an incompetent approach where leadership fails to lead and take accountability. Worst case, exiting employees feel the sudden shift to leper status and are shocked that literally overnight, they’ve somehow become a threat to the firm. No longer are they members of the “family” but instead they are now isolated, financially unstable and heading into the labor market with their personal brand damaged. After the initial shock wears off, they quickly reach the conclusion “I don’t matter” and even worse — maybe they never did.
What a Human-Centered Approach to Layoffs Looks Like
As I’ve written about many times, an employee’s experience is not based solely on what happens directly to them, but also by observing what happens to others. That feeling of “I don’t matter” will not be limited just to those leaving — those remaining will feel it, too.
While it seems counter-intuitive, it is possible to encourage autonomy and certainty during layoffs. One macro approach is to review your organization's process flow for layoffs against the list of descriptors above and design strategies to mitigate those gaps or feelings. Engage your employees in the redesign — don’t leave it up to HR, Legal and Finance. Their muscle memory will (understandably) pull their focus towards protecting the firm. In addition to protecting the firm, a more human-centered approach should do the following:
Communicate Context With Clarity
Without understanding why change is happening, our human tendency is to cling to the status quo. We should help our colleagues — dare I say our friends — effectively work their way through this major disruption. It is natural for our brains to gravitate towards the negative, sometimes referred to in social science research as a threat state. Once our brains are in a threat state, our ability to think clearly diminishes. Relevant, predictable and clear communication will help counter-balance these negative emotions that can be overwhelming and interfere with cognition.
The messenger also matters. To provide assurance about the integrity of the process as well as the future health of the organization, senior leaders should model the way forward, including owning accountability for the decisions and conveying consistent messages across the organization. Having an “open door” policy and regularly encouraging people to engage in conversations is a wise move. Without it, colleagues will reach the conclusion that profits always trump people.
One small detail .… I’m always surprised that leaders forget to show gratitude for an employee’s past contributions during layoffs. Expressing appreciation is free and super impactful when sincere — it just takes purposeful, well-intended effort. The absence of gratitude sends a clear message as well.
Remember, when employees exit your firm, you are launching a brand ambassador into the labor market.
Related Article: Survivor's Guilt and Other Ways Layoffs Impact the Employees Left Behind
Create Process Choices When Feasible
Employers rarely have visibility to the full impact a layoff has on their employees and their families. For the business, it is predominantly a monetary event, but rarely is that the case for the employee. The range of near-term decisions they will need to make will be significant, both inside and outside of the firm.
To promote a sense of autonomy and well-being, organizations should integrate choices into the layoff process, being sensitive to not overwhelm the employee with too many choices too fast.
Here are some examples of choices that could be integrated:
- Selecting the best time for a leadership briefing to understand the business drivers.
- Deciding the best approach to communicate with their team as a people manager.
- Scheduling time with the HR team for a detailed briefing on how severance works.
- Deciding the best way to transition existing work, when, and to whom.
- Working with an internal recruiter to quickly apply for existing open roles.
- Writing a personalized email to colleagues before they depart.
- Choosing to meet with transition resources to work on their resume or job search plan.
- Being asked if a farewell gathering is desired.
- Determining remaining work schedules and location flexibility.
- Reprioritizing their schedules to adjust to the looming pressures of exiting.
Conference
Sep
16
HR Tech Conference Las Vegas 2025
Register
Conference
Oct
27
Gartner HR Symposium/Xpo Orlando 2025
Register
Related Article: Breaking the Layoff-Rehire Cycle
Additional Perspective
Josh Davis, PhD, is the director of the Science-Based Leadership Institute and the author of the international bestseller "Two Awesome Hours: Science-Based Strategies to Harness Your Best Time and Get Your Most Important Work Done."
As the pandemic winds down, a number of organizations are demanding that workers come back to the office. Some managers feel like they do not have enough control over performance otherwise. As a result, employees must give up some of their autonomy — they no longer have the flexibility to choose how to use their time or attend to personal matters. From a neuroscience perspective, does this move make sense?
Across types of work, gender and age differences, there is a robust relationship between autonomy and a number of the factors that lead to high performance. The less autonomy you have, the less well-being, less energy at work, lower engagement, and more stress you have. The more autonomy you have, the more you have these things. This has been shown across many types of work, as well: knowledge processing, client work, production and transportation, and sales and marketing. The mechanisms that drive these effects are known to a degree as well — positive affect, feeling safe bringing up issues, being able to move more quickly with decisions, feeling a sense of ownership — all stem from autonomy. These are qualities most businesses want to encourage. And researchers also are uncovering how autonomy affects the brain, which helps reveal why it is so important to prioritize. Brain activity across studies consistently finds that autonomy is inherently rewarding — it is an intrinsic motivator — that gold standard of motivation that can’t be bought.
In short, from a neuroscience perspective, giving employees more autonomy is good for business. Bosses who are demanding more oversight and face time at the office are not understanding the impact. On the other side, it’s precisely the same issue. Bosses who don’t know how or whose job doesn’t allow them to effectively manage remotely don’t have autonomy and often sense a loss of control, a major stressor for them. Employees who are demanding more flexibility likely are not understanding the impact on their managers. So, it seems businesses must choose between stressed out managers or stressed out employees. Or could there be a third way? Because autonomy is likely a key driver here, businesses should not aim to take sides, but instead solve for greater autonomy for both sides. Managers need autonomy, but not at the expense of employees.
Learn how you can join our contributor community.
