裁員往往讓人聯想到這樣的場景:員工抱著塞滿個人物品的紙箱走出辦公室。但在遠程辦公世界里,這可能只是意味著你從床上爬起來,卻收到一封電子郵件,說你再也不用來上班了,然后你就可以繼續睡回籠覺了。
在過去的一年里,成千上萬的員工成了砧板上的魚肉任人宰割:由于利率飆升、對經濟衰退的擔憂以及疫情期間的過度招聘,裁員繼續在工作場所蔓延,越來越多的公司在宣布裁員時鼓勵員工居家辦公。
據報道,百事公司(PepsiCo)在去年進行裁員時也是這么做的。谷歌(Google)1月采取了同樣的做法,通過電子郵件裁掉了1.2萬名員工,并鼓勵員工居家辦公,以“接受噩耗”。本周早些時候,麥當勞(McDonald)要求其美國和部分國際公司的員工居家辦公三天,以便遠程發送裁員信息。
歡迎來到遠程裁員時代,在這個時代,雇主們有時會不擇手段,一心想讓員工至少有一部分時間重返辦公室工作,而當他們需要裁員的時候,就會很樂意讓員工居家辦公。這聽起來像是一種挽回面子或避免尷尬的策略,但賓夕法尼亞大學沃頓商學院管理學教授彼得·卡佩里(Peter Cappelli)表示,這一舉措實際上可能更人性化。
他在接受《財富》雜志采訪時表示:“如果你是一名遠程工作者,我們讓你重返辦公室工作卻只是為了解雇你,這種想法有點殘忍。”
遠程裁員還可以讓員工私下消化這一消息,并管理隨之而來的復雜情緒。雖然裁員帶來的恥辱感正在減弱,但當一些員工抱著紙箱離開時,他們仍然會把裁員與羞恥聯系在一起。在家里消化這一消息帶來的影響有助于緩解羞恥感。
一位熟悉麥當勞遠程裁員決定的消息人士告訴《財富》雜志:“過去,員工們會被叫到一個窗戶全用紙糊起來的會議室,然后不得不走回辦公桌前收拾東西,低著頭離開。我認為這樣做的目的是讓受影響的同事更有尊嚴地離開,同時,也能保護受影響同事的隱私,并為他們提供一定程度的慰藉。”
盡管如此,通過Zoom或電子郵件裁員的想法聽起來還是很殘酷——尤其是員工立即無法遠程訪問電腦。但這都是裁員變革的一部分,卡佩里說,裁員在過去是臨時性的,主要針對加入工會的員工和合同制藍領工人。我們今天所熟悉的永久性裁員——就像我們在科技和金融等行業看到的白領裁員——實際上是從20世紀80年代才開始出現的。
一段時間以來,親口告訴員工被裁一直被認為是專業性做法,也是對為公司付出時間和精力的員工更人性化的做法。但正如越來越多的遠程裁員所證明的那樣,情況自那以后發生了變化。
從電話留言到辦公室再到Zoom云會議
雖然通過Zoom裁員可能聽起來像是一件新鮮事,但這并不一定構成員工解雇方式的巨大轉變。卡佩里指出,一代人以前,公司通過電話留言(還記得電話留言嗎?)的方式解雇員工。這種做法并不受歡迎,被認為是一種很糟糕的做法。
因此,人們鼓勵進行面對面裁員,以為員工提供更大支持,并確保員工可以接受這一消息,如提供幫助和回答問題。但卡佩里認為,這更多地是出于責任感。
他說,面對面裁員是正確的做法,這更多地是出于“作為領導者,不能膽怯”的想法。他補充說,現實情況是,領導們一直在委托裁員,而不是親口告訴員工要他們打包走人。
卡佩里說,大蕭條后,公司減少了裁員,并開始依賴公司律師的建議。他補充說,這使得辦公室裁員方式比最初的做法更冷酷,通常涉及護送員工離開大樓。
卡佩里說:“這就是按合同辦事,不講人情。如果你要裁員,最好是讓人們到某個地方去消化這一消息,這樣他們就不必應對在老板或其他人面前走出辦公室時還得控制自己的情緒的尷尬情況。”
卡佩里說,遠程裁員不是“最佳做法”的觀點源于過去雇主和人力資源部門會提供幫助這一假設。隨著公司不再提供相關幫助,辦公室內裁員的做法也漸漸淡出人們的視野。在這一點上,“為什么公開進行裁員更好呢?”他問道。
無論如何,在員工的眼中,確實沒有什么好的裁員方式,因為這意味著他們失業了,而這通常是管理失誤的結果。但專家們最近告訴《財富》雜志的梅根?萊昂哈特(Megan Leonhardt),傳達裁員消息時的語氣很重要,而如何執行也很重要。
似乎通知員工被裁的地點也很重要。如果麥當勞召集所有人都來辦公室辦公,這樣做并不一定會帶來更令人滿意的結果,因為許多人只是在辦公室里提心吊膽地等待著最后通知。卡佩里說,讓通常進行遠程辦公的員工來辦公室卻只是為了解雇他們,這會讓他們蒙受羞辱。(財富中文網)
譯者:中慧言-王芳
裁員往往讓人聯想到這樣的場景:員工抱著塞滿個人物品的紙箱走出辦公室。但在遠程辦公世界里,這可能只是意味著你從床上爬起來,卻收到一封電子郵件,說你再也不用來上班了,然后你就可以繼續睡回籠覺了。
在過去的一年里,成千上萬的員工成了砧板上的魚肉任人宰割:由于利率飆升、對經濟衰退的擔憂以及疫情期間的過度招聘,裁員繼續在工作場所蔓延,越來越多的公司在宣布裁員時鼓勵員工居家辦公。
據報道,百事公司(PepsiCo)在去年進行裁員時也是這么做的。谷歌(Google)1月采取了同樣的做法,通過電子郵件裁掉了1.2萬名員工,并鼓勵員工居家辦公,以“接受噩耗”。本周早些時候,麥當勞(McDonald)要求其美國和部分國際公司的員工居家辦公三天,以便遠程發送裁員信息。
歡迎來到遠程裁員時代,在這個時代,雇主們有時會不擇手段,一心想讓員工至少有一部分時間重返辦公室工作,而當他們需要裁員的時候,就會很樂意讓員工居家辦公。這聽起來像是一種挽回面子或避免尷尬的策略,但賓夕法尼亞大學沃頓商學院管理學教授彼得·卡佩里(Peter Cappelli)表示,這一舉措實際上可能更人性化。
他在接受《財富》雜志采訪時表示:“如果你是一名遠程工作者,我們讓你重返辦公室工作卻只是為了解雇你,這種想法有點殘忍。”
遠程裁員還可以讓員工私下消化這一消息,并管理隨之而來的復雜情緒。雖然裁員帶來的恥辱感正在減弱,但當一些員工抱著紙箱離開時,他們仍然會把裁員與羞恥聯系在一起。在家里消化這一消息帶來的影響有助于緩解羞恥感。
一位熟悉麥當勞遠程裁員決定的消息人士告訴《財富》雜志:“過去,員工們會被叫到一個窗戶全用紙糊起來的會議室,然后不得不走回辦公桌前收拾東西,低著頭離開。我認為這樣做的目的是讓受影響的同事更有尊嚴地離開,同時,也能保護受影響同事的隱私,并為他們提供一定程度的慰藉。”
盡管如此,通過Zoom或電子郵件裁員的想法聽起來還是很殘酷——尤其是員工立即無法遠程訪問電腦。但這都是裁員變革的一部分,卡佩里說,裁員在過去是臨時性的,主要針對加入工會的員工和合同制藍領工人。我們今天所熟悉的永久性裁員——就像我們在科技和金融等行業看到的白領裁員——實際上是從20世紀80年代才開始出現的。
一段時間以來,親口告訴員工被裁一直被認為是專業性做法,也是對為公司付出時間和精力的員工更人性化的做法。但正如越來越多的遠程裁員所證明的那樣,情況自那以后發生了變化。
從電話留言到辦公室再到Zoom云會議
雖然通過Zoom裁員可能聽起來像是一件新鮮事,但這并不一定構成員工解雇方式的巨大轉變。卡佩里指出,一代人以前,公司通過電話留言(還記得電話留言嗎?)的方式解雇員工。這種做法并不受歡迎,被認為是一種很糟糕的做法。
因此,人們鼓勵進行面對面裁員,以為員工提供更大支持,并確保員工可以接受這一消息,如提供幫助和回答問題。但卡佩里認為,這更多地是出于責任感。
他說,面對面裁員是正確的做法,這更多地是出于“作為領導者,不能膽怯”的想法。他補充說,現實情況是,領導們一直在委托裁員,而不是親口告訴員工要他們打包走人。
卡佩里說,大蕭條后,公司減少了裁員,并開始依賴公司律師的建議。他補充說,這使得辦公室裁員方式比最初的做法更冷酷,通常涉及護送員工離開大樓。
卡佩里說:“這就是按合同辦事,不講人情。如果你要裁員,最好是讓人們到某個地方去消化這一消息,這樣他們就不必應對在老板或其他人面前走出辦公室時還得控制自己的情緒的尷尬情況。”
卡佩里說,遠程裁員不是“最佳做法”的觀點源于過去雇主和人力資源部門會提供幫助這一假設。隨著公司不再提供相關幫助,辦公室內裁員的做法也漸漸淡出人們的視野。在這一點上,“為什么公開進行裁員更好呢?”他問道。
無論如何,在員工的眼中,確實沒有什么好的裁員方式,因為這意味著他們失業了,而這通常是管理失誤的結果。但專家們最近告訴《財富》雜志的梅根?萊昂哈特(Megan Leonhardt),傳達裁員消息時的語氣很重要,而如何執行也很重要。
似乎通知員工被裁的地點也很重要。如果麥當勞召集所有人都來辦公室辦公,這樣做并不一定會帶來更令人滿意的結果,因為許多人只是在辦公室里提心吊膽地等待著最后通知。卡佩里說,讓通常進行遠程辦公的員工來辦公室卻只是為了解雇他們,這會讓他們蒙受羞辱。(財富中文網)
譯者:中慧言-王芳
Layoffs often conjure up visions of workers marching out of the office carrying a cardboard box stuffed with trinkets. But in a remote work world, it might just mean rolling out of bed to find an email that you never need to return to the office and then simply going back to sleep.
That’s been the case for thousands of workers who have been put on the chopping block within the past year; as layoffs continue to roll through the workplace due to rocketing interest rates, recession fears, and overhiring during the pandemic, more companies are encouraging people to work from home when they announce job cuts.
PepsiCo reportedly did as much when it conducted a round of layoffs last year. Google took the same route in January when letting go of 12,000 employees over email, encouraging workers to work from home to “absorb this difficult news.” And earlier this week, McDonald’s told its U.S. and some of its international corporate staff to work from home for three days so it can deliver layoff messages remotely.
Welcome to the era of remote layoffs, in which bosses who are sometimes hell-bent on having their workers in office at least part of the time are happy with letting them work from home when they need to let them go. It may sound like a tactic to save face or avoid an awkward march out, but UPenn Wharton School management professor Peter Cappelli says it might actually be the better move.
“If you’re a remote worker anyway, the idea that we’re gonna call you into the office just to lay you off is kind of cruel,” he tells Fortune.
Remote layoffs can also help workers privately process the news and all the complicated emotions that come with it. While the stigma surrounding layoffs is eroding, some workers still associate it with shame as they walk out with that cardboard box. Dealing with the impact from home can help alleviate some of that.
“It used to be that folks would be called into a conference room with the windows papered over and then have to walk back to their desk to get their things and leave with their heads down,” a source familiar with the decision behind Mcdonald’s remote layoffs told Fortune. “I think the goal here is really to provide dignity, confidentiality, and comfort to the impacted colleagues.”
Still, though, the idea of being laid off over Zoom or email can sound harsh—especially when workers are immediately cut off from accessing their computer. But it’s all part of the evolution of layoffs, which Cappelli says used to be temporary and focused on unionized and contracted blue-collar employees. The permanent layoffs that we’re familiar with today—like those we’ve been seeing rock the white-collar workforce in industries like tech and finance—have actually only been around have since the 1980s.
Conducting these in person has been considered the professional standard for a while, often believed to be the more humane approach for the worker who has put time and effort into the company. But as the growing number of remote layoffs prove, the landscape has changed since then.
From voicemail to the office to Zoom
While Zoom layoffs might sound like a new thing, they’re not necessarily a wild transformation to the way people are let go. Workers used to be laid off via voicemail (remember voicemail?) a generation ago, Cappelli points out. It wasn’t received well and considered to be bad practice.
So, face-to-face layoffs were encouraged as a way to provide greater support in ensuring the employee would be okay, such as offering assistance and answer questions. But Cappelli believes the intentions behind this were more about accountability than anything.
A lot of the idea behind doing it face-to-face as the right thing “was more about not being chicken as leaders,” he says, adding that the reality is that leaders have always delegated layoffs rather than telling employees themselves to pack their bags.
And, Cappelli says, companies cut down on offboarding after the Great Recession and have come to rely on their corporate lawyers’ advice. It’s made in-office layoffs more cold than what they originated as, he adds, often involving escorting workers out of the building.
“It’s just really contractual, and really impersonal,” Cappelli says. “And if you’re going to do that, it’s surely better to let people take the news someplace where they don’t have the public embarrassment of walking out of this office and having to keep their emotions under control in front of their boss or somebody else.”
The idea that remote layoffs aren’t in “best practice” are therefore rooted in old assumptions of the assistance that bosses and HR used to provide, Cappelli says. With these resources gone, it seems like the need for in-office layoffs has faded. At that point, “Why is it better to do it in public?” he asks.
Regardless, there really is no good kind of layoff in the eyes of workers, considering that it means they’re out of the job—and that it’s typically the result of management gone wrong. But tone and execution when the news is delivered matters, experts recently told Fortune’s Megan Leonhardt.
So too, it seems, does the location. McDonald’s bringing everyone in wouldn’t necessarily bring about a more pleasant scenario, as many would just be in the office waiting for the foot to drop. Calling typically remote workers into the office simply to be laid off, Cappelli says, would be humiliating.