How to talk to the employees who remain after redundancies

After redundancies, it is not just headcount that changes

On Monday the team gathers around the same task board, but two names are missing. One person feels relief at keeping their job, another feels anger at the departure of a valued colleague, and a third stays silent and asks only about the deadline for the next project. It is not helpful to label everyone with “survivor syndrome”. It is a shorthand that obscures real differences. A manager should create space for conversation rather than trying to read emotions from people’s faces.

Say: “I know the last few days have been difficult and that you may have different questions. Today I want to tell you what we know, what we don’t know yet and what work will look like from tomorrow.” An opening like this does not require you to declare people’s emotions on their behalf. Do not make anyone describe in public how they have taken their colleagues’ departure. After the meeting, offer individual conversations. Some people will find it easier to ask difficult questions then.

A fair process matters to those who remain, too

In van Dierendonck and Jacobs’s meta-analysis of downsizing, perceived fairness was associated with commitment to the organisation. The researchers highlighted the particular importance of procedural justice for the employees who stay. This is not proof that a single well-delivered address will reverse the effects of redundancies. It does show, however, why the way decisions are made and explained still matters, even once the decisions themselves have been taken.

Do not disclose confidential details about the people who have been made redundant. You can explain the principles of the process, the scope of the reorganisation, the planned communication and who is responsible for the next steps. When you hear “Why did she stay and not him?”, do not hide behind irritation. Reply: “I’m not going to discuss other employees’ individual circumstances. I can explain the criteria we used and the organisational changes that follow from them.” Respect for those who are leaving is part of your credibility with those who stay.

Reassuring people that everything will be fine does not remove uncertainty

Managers often want to calm the team by saying “there won’t be any more redundancies”. If no such decision has been made, they are creating a promise that future events may brutally undermine. It is more honest to separate three layers: what has been approved, what is being analysed, and what cannot be determined today. A team can accept a hard truth, but it will struggle to trust contradictory reassurances repeated every week.

To the question “Are you going to let more people go next month?”, you might answer: “As of today, no further phase has been approved. I can’t give you a guarantee about the future. If the situation changes, we’ll let you know on the agreed date.” Research by Brockner and colleagues suggests that a sense of control can soften some of the negative reactions that follow downsizing. So give people influence where it is real: over the order of tasks, how they work together and how they flag overload.

Do not offload all the work onto a smaller team

After employees leave, their tasks often remain unchanged on the spreadsheet. The manager then says: “We’ll all need to put in some extra effort for a while.” If nobody specifies how long this will last, employees may conclude that the extra duties will stay with them for good. Before the first meeting, prepare three lists: essential tasks, tasks to be postponed and tasks the company is dropping. If there is no third list, perhaps nobody has yet decided which tasks the company is genuinely going to drop.

Instead of “You’ll manage, won’t you?”, ask: “Which three duties absolutely have to be done, and what should we pause so that we aren’t constantly working overtime?” Overload will not be solved by a change of attitude. It takes decisions about priorities, cover, skills and resources. Employees will believe a declaration of respect more quickly if they see a task removed, a deadline extended or extra help provided than if they hear yet another thank-you for their flexibility.

The first meeting and individual conversations serve different purposes

The team meeting is for shared facts: decisions, the timetable, ways of working and responsibilities. It is not the place to go round the room asking each person: “So, how do you feel about all this?” After a brief opening, gather the questions whose answers matter to everyone. Also set up a channel for anonymous questions, if the organisation is able to receive them and deal with them properly. Promise that you will come back with an answer – not that every answer will be positive.

In a one-to-one, you may hear a question that was not asked in the group: “Do I now have to do the work of two people?” Say: “I don’t expect you to take on two jobs with nothing else changing. Let’s go through the scope of your work together and see what we can take off the list.” If the employee talks about sadness or anger, do not immediately steer the conversation back to productivity. Acknowledge the significance of the situation, then agree what is needed at work over the next few days. Not every reaction calls for a psychological interpretation.

Trust is rebuilt over the following weeks, not in a single address

Set a specific date for the next update, even if you expect little new information. After a week, check which tasks have stalled, and after a month, whether the agreed division of work is workable. If a decision depends on the board, say who will ask for an answer and when. A lack of an answer should also be named as such. In times of uncertainty, a predictable rhythm of communication is more credible than spontaneous assurances that the manager’s door is always open.

Watch not only whether projects are delivered on time but also how people behave: whether they raise problems earlier, whether they ask about priorities, whether they increasingly hold back from voicing their opinions. Do not take silence as proof that everything is back to normal. Give employees the chance to challenge the new rules without being accused of disloyalty. Even if the decision on redundancies cannot be reversed, the way the remaining work is organised is still in management’s hands.

After redundancies, people judge not only the cuts themselves but also the fairness of the process, the credibility of the communication and what happens to their own duties. A good manager does not promise the impossible: they present the facts, acknowledge the unknowns, remove some of the tasks and return to people’s questions on the date they announced. In this way, they give the team a predictability that no reassuring speech can replace.

How Empatyzer helps you talk to your team after redundancies

A manager has to run a meeting after redundancies in a team where some people prefer to move quickly on to the tasks, while others need a detailed explanation of the change. Before the conversation, she describes to Em which decisions have already been approved, where information is missing and which tasks are left without an owner. Drawing on the available team tips, Em helps her prepare a message that takes account of people’s different needs for predictability and influence. Em also helps her put together two kinds of questions: shared questions about workload, and individual ones about collaboration and reactions. Em works with the facts she has described and the team tips available. The manager comes away with a plan: what to say at the start, how to respond to a question that has no definite answer, how to avoid shifting blame onto those who are leaving, and which agreements to put in writing. If relationship tips are available for a later conversation with a specific person, she can adjust the level of detail and the pace of her explanation. Personalised micro-lessons help her practise speaking clearly about uncertainty, giving constructive feedback and listening without becoming defensive.