I'm no apologist for overpaid middle management, but... I'm not sure what the best response would actually be to this kind of question. If you answer "yes," but the final layoffs aren't finalized... you initiate widespread panic, because everyone worries that they could get laid off. If you answer "no," you're a dishonest snake. If you know exactly which departments are facing layoffs, you could answer "yes" and just jump the gun to announce they layoffs right at that moment, but... you'll still end up stressing a lot of people out and hurting general productivity.
Not trying to make up excuses for the lying here, but I'm genuinely curious what a VP should do in this position. Lie for the good of the many? Or be truthful to keep a clean conscience?
When it happened at my previous company several years ago, the CIO was honest and upfront. We were on our 2nd down tick in retail and he said in the next few months they would be letting contractors go. A few months after that he told us they might be laying off or outsourcing certain departments. A few months after that he told us which areas would be effected and that individuals would know if they are being let go on one of 2 days back to back. Everyone knew if they made it through those days they were safe. Then they gave those employees let go 6 months to offload responsibilities, and helped them find new jobs.
IMO the fact that the employees anticipated that layoffs were coming and leadership still didn’t preemptively quell that sentiment means someone already made a mistake. I’m sympathetic to how difficult it can be to relay unpleasant news, but it’s sort of like getting the lifeboats ready before your ship hits the iceberg.
Are MBAs still taught the duties of leadership? Or are they just told to get out with enough cash for their next venture?
A core tenant of any MBA program is to inculcate a duty to shareholders vs. employees. Your duty of leadership extends as far as it takes to optimize organizational outputs for quarterly goals that move share price up.
Employees should take the exact same attitude with their job. Your duty as an employee is to optimize your compensation ( However you define compensation it doesn't have to be just money).
Same thing with honesty. If the employer isn't going to give you advanced notice that you may be fired, you have no obligation to tell them that you are thinking about quitting.
At almost every place I've worked there's this super pervasive "family" notion as-if they wouldn't eject you the moment it was in their best interests. I wish we could drop that pretense - it's just dishonest.
This is about to be a ton of _personal_ anecdotes that outline why "then just drop it" isn't always as simple as that.
I often use the "office beers" analogy on here to discuss the prevalent requirement of socializing in the workplace these days. To me, I have no interest in knocking off at 2pm on a Friday to participate in office drinking culture and it's 100% screwed me in the past.
To me, I should be able to just work. I have no obligation to go go-karting, to drink with you, to talk at your toastmasters, to go bar crawl on a RAGBRI bus... whatever it may be. I add value by fulfilling my obligation of labor. Not by "team building." And, with that - I feel that if I achieve my deliverables then I should be able to go home and live my private life. Simple.
> Be the distant uncle, if you have to (this probably works less the higher up the chain you go, however)
You are 100% correct - the higher up you want to get the more you have to socialize and pander to the corporate "family." I've found this to be ubiquitous across employers to the point that I prefer more contract/smaller-shop work where it is not as prevalent.
Also, I want to note by being the distant uncle you are often hurting yourself for advancement. You have to go buddy-buddy with folks to get on their radar, and in a sizable team on the west coast there's a good chance one of your colleagues is doing just that with your management. Regardless of output - it's oft the person who has socialized/marketed more that will get the advancement.
Sorry - but in my _personal experience_ it is very much not as simple as "just drop it" in regards to that family pretense. If you even remotely want to "climb the ladder" you must participate at some level...
Also, I want to note by being the distant uncle you are often hurting yourself for advancement.
If you don't mind trafficking one personal anecdote for another, I've heard this since I entered the corporate workforce at 19 (got a wee bit lucky there), and in my mid-to-late 30's, I've been demonstrably more protective and distant of the boundaries between work and self
the result in the last six years has been making more money and adding the word "Principal" to my job title.
These are mere anecdotes, I think we've found common ground admitting that much, but I don't think I buy into many of the notions that continue getting harped on about what will and wont "hurt" my career advancement anymore; as most of them have just been means of corralling behavior and only brought me burnout and stress.
So your idea is that if you're a VP and your choices are to tell everyone the truth or lie to everyone, you'd rather lie to save yourself a single day of uncertainty.
Meanwhile, the people you're about to lay off are definitely getting laid off anyway, and the people you're keeping now have zero reason to trust you or your leadership. And your rationalization for this is you're doing it for the "good of the many."
This has nothing to do with "a clean conscience." This has to do with whether your employees feel that you're being honest with them. Even the career-focused snakes don't want to work for a boss who lie when asked a direct question.
That's why the correct answer is 'I'm not aware of any, but I wouldn't necessarily be made aware in advance.' It's still a lie but not one you can be called out on without insider knowledge.
"We believe we are in a stable situation, but depending on how the market performs or our sales projections (insert whatever here) we may be forced to limit additional hiring or even let some employees go. If we get to that point, you'll be the first to know as security drags you screaming from your desk."
(Probably not the last point, but a decent joke might actually work, or, better yet have a "layoff emergency warchest" so that everyone knows if they DO get laid off they'll get X months severances, or whatever.)
We had open new all hands meeting and allowed questions for management at my stint at big defense company. People asked pointed questions (why aren't our raises keeping up with inflation? was one I remember. The company doesn't owe us raises was the agitated response). Management looked terrible.
After a couple of those meeting, questions where to but submitted by email in advance.... I left not long after.
I think by the time you get to that point, you have no good options.
However, if the status of the company is more adequately described to the employees over time, you can "boil the frog" as it were, and never have to actually lie but still admit that layoffs may be coming if X or Y doesn't happen.
I bet it's much MORE common for the lie to happen in pre-public stages, where they're still trying to "sell" the company as perfectly sized and poised to grow to investors, VCs, etc.
Speak the truth. "I can't answer this kind of a question. If I answer 'yes', then there will be undue stress on the people that are not getting laid off. If I answer 'no', but the business requires layoffs, then I will be lying."
The problem is, it is to the advantage of every manager who is not laying people off to say “Absolutely not”. Every employee is aware that managers have this incentive, so anything other than “Absolutely not” is likely to mean “Yes”. There is no collective incentive for managers at different companies to all answer “I can’t say” in order to give each other plausible deniability.
The answer is to to be straight up and make it clear that you can't answer that specific question in that instance because of how the real world works... but reassure people that you will be as straightforward and fair as you can be when you can answer.
You have the all hands on the day after the layoff rather than the day before the layoff so that the question, if it is asked, is asked in private rather than in public.
"I don't recall having been told that any layoffs are imminent, but even if I had been told that they were, that would be confidential information and I wouldn't be at liberty to say."
Not trying to make up excuses for the lying here, but I'm genuinely curious what a VP should do in this position. Lie for the good of the many? Or be truthful to keep a clean conscience?