'Synergy-related headcount restructuring' and other euphemisms for 'you're fired'

I had lunch with someone recently who was worried that he was going to be "Riffed." When I asked what that meant, she said, "Reduction In Force", and they not only turned it into an acronym, but also a verb.

Also, I once had a job where I was the recipient of a "one-person layoff", it didn't take long for me to figure out that I was probably fired. But at least I could go around telling people that I was laid off (the term is more friendly when you're looking for the next job).

Ours was called a 'workforce efficiency initiative as part of strategic redeployment of resources'.

I have heard a lot of different terms used over the years. Right-sizing and Rif'd were popular a number of years ago. Lately the term in vogue appears to be "job eliminated". In a conversation this week, the individual I was speaking with informed be they had been job eliminated. In their case it was a true description of the situation. Their job no longer existed and no one at the company would be assuming the duties this individual had performed.
I'm not sure which is scarier, the fact that a company can be so poorly run that a person can hold a job for years performing duties that didn't need to be done or the more likely situation that management eliminated the job to cut cost without fully understanding the duties performed. In the later case management only realizes their mistake when an issue arises. Hopefully the issue isn't so big it puts the company out of business.
This reminds me of a company that fired everyone in R&D. They saved a lot of money for a number of years then went out of business as their competitors continued to innovate while they just kept producing the same old products. Another less dramatic example is a company I worked for years ago that decided to save money by firing the entire maintenance staff and replacing them with a cleaning service. As far as management was concerned the maintenance staff just cleaned the buildings. After the maintenance staff was fired, when light bulbs burnt out electricians were called to come in and replace them, when the toilets backed up the plumber was called and when it snowed we had to depend on the plowing company to come around and shovel the sidewalks and spread salt. Not only did it end up costing more to have all these duties done by separate companies but the slower response from these outside firms lead to additional property damage and created safety issues. Eventually a few people were hired back to handle routine maintenance and those duties that could be done more efficiently by others were contracted for.
Sometimes due to improved technology, better processes or just changes in the business you don't need as many people to get the work done. In these cases its prudent to fire staff that isn't needed. I just recommend companies take time to review what the job duties are and understand the value being delivered by their employees before they begin "job eliminating" to reduce cost. It could ended up being more expensive to eliminate the position then to keep them until economic conditions improve.

Why does a CEO need to use BS language to "distance" themselves from a tough decision that will impact the lives of thousands of their workers? These people are adults and are paid well to make these tough decisions. They should be able to face up to them and their employees...that would show true leadership rather than trying to pawn off the responsibility for having to cut jobs on someone or something else.

I also think it is important for C-level executives to purposely NOT distance themselves from the masses of people they manage with language like this. It is important for them to remember that each job they eliminate represents a real, living person who will be forced to make some very tough choices in their own lives. Most of those jobs also represent a family that will be tossed into chaos and when added up, can represent a community's loss as well. These decisions are necessary, but I think it is important for CEO's to understand, accept, and take responsibility for the true scope of what they are doing rather than distancing themselves from it and then going home to their comfortable lifestyle that was built on the labor of that "headcount" they just decreased.

At a company where I survived 5 layoffs before deciding it was better to jump than be pushed they used a different euphemism each time.

"Targeted Restructuring to better align the company with it's Core Competencies" i.e. 10% RIF of worker bees, equally distributed across the company, not one manager got riffed

"Aligning the Workforce to better support our Customers" i.e. 10% RIF of worker bees, equally distributed across the company, not one manager got riffed

"Adjusting our Cost Basis to better reflect the current global economic situation" (in the middle of the biggest tech boom in history) i.e. 10% RIF of worker bees, equally distributed across the company, not one manager got riffed

"Refocusing our Manpower Investments to Drive our company into The Future" i.e. 10% RIF of worker bees, equally distributed across the company, HOLY CRAP! THEY FIRED A MANAGER! but they fired the wrong one (should have been the CEO)

"Rightsizing Headcount to match revenue" i.e. 10% RIF of worker bees, equally distributed across the company, not one manager got riffed

I left at this point but they have had 3 layoffs since of the same character, plus sold off as many bits of the company as they could.

in between each layoff, they would hire a bunch of additional managers to help them "Manage their way" out of the current "Crisis"

now they finally flushed the old CEO, brought in a new guy who specializes in "re-privatizing" public companies, and are getting ready to _wait_ _for_ _it_.... have another layoff!

The new word I have been hearing is OPTIMIZATION sounds great doesn't it.

I agree that well-compensated CEOs should not seek to distance themselves from difficult layoff announcements. Put forth the business reasons and make the business case. If your employees cannot understand a well-made business case, then why did you hire them in the first place? Plus, it forces you to go to the trouble of examining whether or not you have a valid business case! :-)

While we're drifting somewhat, I'd like to bring up the "risk and reward" concept to which we give lip service. It is sometimes stated that CEOs (and other high executives) get compensated so well because of the risks involved in running the company. What? You don't have D&O insurance or something? Has the CEO risked having healthcare or a roof over his head or a care to drive or his kids' college fund? Likely not. He might lose some kind of standing in the CEO club if his company goes down the tubes or he gets kicked out. But what do the workers risk? Close to everything, in most cases. They come in day after day, loyally, and then receive a notice that puts their livelihood, health, and future in doubt. It turns out those years of dependable service were pretty risky after all.

Another group of bizbots with no idea of what the word "synergy" means.