Recently, I have had the opportunity to look and work on a very unfortunate case of chaotic organisation dynamics. The manager of our story (lets call him Steve) comes with a long tenure, more than 10 years at the company, and was told he would be laid off. This is not news anymore in this day and age where layoffs have become a common currency and a symptom of deeper issues with the economy and the leadership of companies all around the globe. Steve explained that it was not the first time they had a layoff, and there had been several rounds of cutting layers (in the name of efficiency), and several chaotic decisions that were already deeply impacting morale. The ship was sinking and everyone was asked to ignore the rising levels of water while that flood claimed more casualties.
Everyone thought things could not get worse, but they were wrong. Imagine this, weeks after you have been told that your job would be eliminated, you receive a different “offer”. You can choose to be fired, or you can choose one of your direct reports to be fired instead, and you will be taking on that person’s responsibilities in addition to the ones you already have. What a fantastic offer, am I right? A dream come true…
We have a company that has put one of their leaders (and we would not be surprised many others as well) in a position that is personally destructive. Any choice made here would have emotional repercusions to several individuals. And any choice definitely would not fix the real underlying problem; there is no indication any choice here would fix the organisational issues. It’s a race to the bottom.
One of the problems presented is how seniority, tenure in the company, has been reduced to nothing. Even worse, it might be the very issue itself; as disconnected managers play a numbers game, deciding which figure on a spreadsheet is greater than the others.
The direct reports from Steve are also all senior in their job, with proven high performance and exceeding expectations every year. Really, there is no clear answer, no one is “obviously underperforming and should be the next one to go”, which would still be a decision that should not be taken lightly. The complexity of a decision like this is staggering. It is no wonder Steve sought help, as anyone would be mentally drained and overwhelmed, even if it’s only firing a single person.
I want to reiterate; The choice is impossible. The guilt of firing someone to save yourself, versus the fear of unemployment and what that means to your own family. On top of everything, the tearing of one’s moral code. Sacrifice someone else to survive one more day. It’s a gut-wrenching position no ethical leader should ever be in.
Many leaders have been put in delicate situations where they should choose people to be laid offs. As unfortunate as that is, leaders can choose (should choose) to navigate these situations with ethics and accountability. Leaders should still be given a choice and partial agency on the decisions to be made.
An there is an additional ingredient. Steve would have to own the responsibilities of a direct report if Steve chose to save his own employment. There is really no saving grace for what is happening at this company.
From Personal Pain to Systemic Failure
But what we really should talk about here, what the focal point of our story should be, is to look at the System Failure of the organisation dynamics. This is not a story of a manager failing to make a decision, or being too ethical or undecisive. This is a story of an organisation failing its leaders. A healthy system empowers leadership, and even in the worst scenarios (like layoffs or bankruptcy), ethical leaders can look at the eyes of others, own their mistakes and decisions, and act with accountability and respect. Here, Steve’s managers have failed him. Instead of helping Steve or whoever is affected by layoffs to navigate this extremely difficult situation, they have decided to throw the problem at them and put them in an impossible situation. Accountability has been thrown out the window.
I always say that, in any organisation, any problem is a leadership problem. Layoffs, in particular, tend to be a lagging consequence of leadership decisions that did not turn out to be right, regardless of intent, experience or how well they were thought of. Everything that happens in a company is for leadership to own. This includes you as a leader, regardless of your rank, tenure or seniority. We are all accountable in some shape or form for everything.
What does this systemic issue generate in an organisation?
- Lack of strategic clarity: Restructuring driven by chaos, and not by a clear communicated strategy.
- Erosion of trust: Loyalty is disregarded, and managers are put in direct conflict with their teams. Tenure is then de-incentivised as the company sends clear signals that anyone with seniority is at a high risk of being fired.
- Unrealistic expectations and resource depletion: Asking one person to take on the work of another this way, without any support, signals a fundamental misunderstanding of operational reality and employee value. An organisation that does not value its human beings will get no value in return from them.
- Ethical Blindness: Is there a better term for it? The company’s decision-makers are either unaware of or indifferent to the profound ethical damage they are inflicting.
- Punishing loyalty: The most loyal, experienced people are often targeted, eroding institutional knowledge and morale.
An Actionable Framework for the Impossible Choice
Now, let’s stop bashing on this failing company, and talk about what really matters to us. I might be a bit optimistic, but there is something we can do. Even when the system is completely broken, when the organisation dynamics have been ran over, and all hope in leadership has been lost, leaders like Steve still have agency and are still accountable for their choices. The question is not just “what should I do?” but “what does this decision say about my leadership and values?”.
We need an actionable way of moving forward. We need to think on principles that we can apply for any leaders caught in such a bind. This is not about telling Steve or you what to do, but how to think about it.
Your reputation and integrity are your greatest asset. A job can be replaced, but your ethical standing is harder to rebuild. Perhaps you have made a decision, years, even decades ago, and you tend to remember it from time to time, and to say to yourself “what a jerk I was!”. These situations shape us, and stay with us until we are ready to leave.
Let’s apply the following steps to our thinking.
- Define your non negotiables
- Gather the facts
- Model the impossible role
- Explore external options simultaneously
Define your non-negotiables
What are your absolute ethical red lines? What is it that you cannot comprimse on?
How we feel about ourselves will unvariably affect who we are. We are a result of our looks, our sound, our confidence, our own emotions and feelings about ourselves.
I am not here to tell you what your moral code should be, you are the only owner of that and I can only advice in a general direction. You must ask yourself at this point Who am I?. Some leaders would indeed take the offer from the organisation, and wing it. Others would take it but simultaneously jump ship as soon as possible. Others would be willing to sacrifice themselves, although they would be leaving that “saved direct report” with a massive issue anyway. (That person will not be safe the next round of layoffs most likely).
When a software system is put under stress that is when we best understand its limitations, the places it breaks, and more importantly, what are our opportunities to improve. This is no different for human beings (not only leaders). Chaotic and sad as it is, this is an opportunity for personal improvement. It is a chance to understand ourselves more, and define what kind of leader we want to be. What we are willing to do, and what we are willing to sacrifice.
Gather the facts
You might have not noticed, but there is a complete lack of concrete compensation or understand of what happens when someone would be laid off here. Steve had no clue what packages were offered to former fired employees, nor what it would mean for Steve to choose himself, or for one of his direct reports.
Once we have regrouped ourselves from all over the floor, and recovered our cool, we must push for concrete numbers and formal offers. Assuming there is no negotiating of the actual problem (there is no solution to a layoff and that it must happen, which is usually the case) then it is reasonable and expected that we get more information about the formal offers here, and clarity on severance. This is a key step and input for our decision.
We must also ask ourselves at this stage, what are the signals, or the facts that support whether this is the last time there will be a layoff round or not. If the company finances are obscured, or not even communicated, we must assume it will not be the last. So if “we do not take the offer now”, what does it mean for us?
We must also look at our direct reports and understand both the reality and their emotional stance. What I mean by this is to analyse how they would emotionally take the news that they will be laid off, and the offer (if we have any details). This should not modify our decision. If we go down the path of firing somebody, we should not choose based on who would take it better. Or at least, this is a question you should ask yourself in the first step where you define your principles. I have some, and you might have others that are different, and we both might be right (or wrong). Just ensure that, within whatever framework or set of values you have defined, that you are being fair. So, why would we ask ourselves how they would take it if we are still going to go ahead without analysing emotions? Because you will be the one talking to this individual, and you want to be as respectful and mindful as possible, cut to the chase, and ensure they understand to the best of your abilities why the decision has been taken.
As HR is usually present in these meetings, you will be asked to read from a script. I personally never find these to be any good, so I tend to revise them and share them to HR before I go. I am very clear about this. “I will be the one talking and putting my face out there, so I will communicate with this employee the following statements”. Of course, I am not looking to be inflamatory or disrepectful to anyone, and keep things rooted in facts where applicable. That is another example of one of my principles, but it might still be different for you.
Model the impossible role
Can you truly do the other person job if you chose to stay? Can you do it without burning out? Work hard on articulating the untenability of the role back to your leader with data, if possible. Not just with emotion. In Steve’s case, there is a high probability that will discard his argument very quickly. Steve knows what to expect, but he should still go through this excercise.
We were “overwhelmed” by the impossible choice given to us, so let’s split the problem in smaller pieces and attack each one of those in an order that makes sense.
First, we said it was an opportunity for us to face these massive ethical conflicts as an opportunity of personal improvement, even if our final destination is updating our linkedin. On top of that, this is also an opportunity to learn how to navigate such intricate and emotional distress situations with professionalism, leadership and empathy. So yes, do your homework, and analyse what it would mean to have two jobs here, and how you would make it work. Something might need to give, something else might need to be sacrificed. Even if you already know from the beginning that you would be hitting the road.
Explore external options simultaneously
I am afraid that in Steve’s situation there might not be a final definitive solution to the systematic problem the company is having. Regardless of what Steve chooses and how that affects his wife and kids, my strong recommendation in this case would be not to stay.
I usually do not recommend this lightly nor make it as part of any framework. If we keep running from the problems, we are missing the opportunity to further shape our leadership skills and to go through these critical, although dramatic, experiences. These are character shaping events that happen only a few times in our lives. How we decide to face them also speak about our own principles and values.
However, in Steve’s situation, he has been given an impossible choice. Regardless of what Steve decides, this company has exhausted the opportunities for Steve to grow. This is the last one, the final test. After it is done, it is time to look for a new adventure. Things will not get better from here.
The reason I am so categorical about this is because how leadership has demonstrated, in this case, a complete blindness to the ethical implications of asking leaders to choose themselves, and how they have decided to delegate accountability which is simply not possible. The leaders of this company have not only broken the incentives of doing a good work, of loyalty, and of empathy. They have broken the system itself, and its past the inflection point where it can be healed back. Unless a complete overhaul of the senior leadership roles takes place, the organisation will just continue going under. When presented with the landscape of being unemployed while having a household with kids to support, we can feel pressured to decide to stay around. A new job can be found, but the time lost with his family and kids, and the message this situation will send to his offspring about life is even worse. You do not want to raise kids who look at your job and your career and get a clear signal that what you are doing is burning you out, setting them aside and away from them, and making you all unhappy.
I am of the idea that we are not only responsible for our own lives, but also what our lives means to others. Especially what it means to our kids and our parents. I do not only grow for myself, but to honour my family and the people that give my life meaning. I have an obligation to be happier, more generous, and to help others; I have that obligation to honour the ones I love. After talking about it for a few hours, Steve felt the same way.
Your decision in this scenario, whatever it will be, it will send a powerful message. To your team, to your company, and most importantly, to yourself and the ones who you love. This now becomes a strategic choice with consequences far beyond staying employed or not.
Conclusion
Steve will be making his decision soon and all I can do is support him and hope he makes a decision that does not break his moral code, his own self.
True leadership is not about just navigating challenges. It’s also about defining the principles you refuse to sacrifice, even when your survival feels at stake.
Your career is an asset, but your integrity is your most valuable one. Every leader, at some point, will be forced into an ethical crucible. What will you do?