How to approach assembling a list of people to let go? What are the main criteria to guide your decisions? How do you balance business needs with team health during a difficult transition like this?
Hi Peter, this is indeed one of the hardest things a manager has to deal with.
That said, this scenario may not be realistic as they may often be given the names of the people in their team by management!
However in the case where the manager is asked to suggest names, I’m not sure I agree with the advice on keeping the low performers. I really think the hardest to manage and low performers need to go first in this scenario given they are the least productive and also take more time from their manager. This could include toxic but good folks… a chance to clear the house, so to say!
Finally depending on the context, but I think it is usually better to keep the most experienced people, both in terms of tenure (they know their way around) and seniority, rather than trying to keep a balance in the team. The company is going into war mode and you need the best warriors (or bang for your buck).
It sounds cynical but ultimately these are businesses and not charities.
Finally, in some countries you might actually be forced by local laws to pick people based on rules outside of your control, like the ones with the least tenure and the people without dependents etc.
Hey, thanks for the comments! I agree with most of the stuff, and indeed, it's rare that line managers have this much freedom in selecting a list of people to lay off. In this sense, this is more of a theoretical challenge than the others. I also agree (of course :D) that these are business decisions, but I believe that the advice I give make business sense too.
I was purposefully overindexing on not basing my list MAINLY on performance, because oftentimes this is the first (and often only!) thing taken into account. In the challenge I also wrote "Everyone is performing adequately", because I wanted to help managers look beyond the obvious performance criteria. And either way, performance should be taken care of continuously, not just during layoffs. It builds a toxic environment if managers oversee performance problems because they want to ensure appropriate staffing in hard times. I guess I should've been more explicit about this in the article!
I thought about team diversity vs building an elite squad. I guess it depends on the context. If the company is really on the verge of existence, and the next quarter or two will make or break it, then you're absolutely right. But even in that case, leadership should understand that this is not a sustainable long-term setup, and eventually invest in balancing the team - but that's another question.
The regulatory context is important, thanks for adding that!
Hi Peter, this is indeed one of the hardest things a manager has to deal with.
That said, this scenario may not be realistic as they may often be given the names of the people in their team by management!
However in the case where the manager is asked to suggest names, I’m not sure I agree with the advice on keeping the low performers. I really think the hardest to manage and low performers need to go first in this scenario given they are the least productive and also take more time from their manager. This could include toxic but good folks… a chance to clear the house, so to say!
Finally depending on the context, but I think it is usually better to keep the most experienced people, both in terms of tenure (they know their way around) and seniority, rather than trying to keep a balance in the team. The company is going into war mode and you need the best warriors (or bang for your buck).
It sounds cynical but ultimately these are businesses and not charities.
Finally, in some countries you might actually be forced by local laws to pick people based on rules outside of your control, like the ones with the least tenure and the people without dependents etc.
Hey, thanks for the comments! I agree with most of the stuff, and indeed, it's rare that line managers have this much freedom in selecting a list of people to lay off. In this sense, this is more of a theoretical challenge than the others. I also agree (of course :D) that these are business decisions, but I believe that the advice I give make business sense too.
I was purposefully overindexing on not basing my list MAINLY on performance, because oftentimes this is the first (and often only!) thing taken into account. In the challenge I also wrote "Everyone is performing adequately", because I wanted to help managers look beyond the obvious performance criteria. And either way, performance should be taken care of continuously, not just during layoffs. It builds a toxic environment if managers oversee performance problems because they want to ensure appropriate staffing in hard times. I guess I should've been more explicit about this in the article!
I thought about team diversity vs building an elite squad. I guess it depends on the context. If the company is really on the verge of existence, and the next quarter or two will make or break it, then you're absolutely right. But even in that case, leadership should understand that this is not a sustainable long-term setup, and eventually invest in balancing the team - but that's another question.
The regulatory context is important, thanks for adding that!