In the wake of recent layoffs, Many have found themselves experiencing an “involuntary career event” or were perhaps caught in the whirlwind of “corporate outplacing”.

The language surrounding job cuts has evolved into a labyrinth of euphemisms, leaving many employees grappling with the stark reality of unemployment. Dubbed as ‘jargon monoxide,’ this linguistic trend reflects a broader corporate strategy aimed at softening the blow of layoffs and mitigating potential backlash on social media platforms.

The Lingering Impact of Layoffs in 2024

As the first month of 2024 unfolds, tens of thousands of individuals have found themselves abruptly without employment, with the tech industry alone witnessing a staggering 32,000 job cuts. 

However, it’s not just the sheer number of job losses that’s noteworthy; it’s the meticulous crafting of language used to deliver the grim news. In an era where social media outrage can spell disaster for corporate reputations, executives are resorting to euphemistic terms to cushion the blow of layoffs.

Harvard Business School professor Sandra Sucher attributes this linguistic delicacy to what she terms “moral disengagement,” wherein harm-doers seek to rationalize and soften the impact of their actions. 

Despite the veneer of sensitivity, the underlying message remains unchanged: individuals are losing their livelihoods. Sucher emphasizes that regardless of the terminology employed, the emotional toll on employees remains palpable.

From Downsizing to Rightsizing: The Evolution of Layoff Lexicon

The proliferation of euphemistic language to describe layoffs gained momentum in the late 1980s and 1990s, coinciding with the normalization of job cuts. What was once a rarity, layoffs became more commonplace, prompting companies to adopt a lexicon that veiled the harsh reality of unemployment. 

Recent examples include Spotify’s “right-sized” announcement, Citigroup’s reference to a “simplified operating model,” and Meta Platforms Inc.’s euphemistic “org changes.”

Despite executives’ belief that vague language placates workers, Stanford professor Robert Sutton warns of the unintended consequences of what he terms “jargon monoxide.” This linguistic anesthesia, intended to dampen emotional reactions, often amplifies feelings of frustration and disillusionment among employees. 

The shift away from terms like “firing” reflects an attempt to mitigate stigma, but the obfuscation only serves to exacerbate uncertainty and anxiety.

Embracing Accountability

While euphemisms may serve a strategic purpose in corporate communication, they do little to assuage the emotional upheaval experienced by those impacted by layoffs. Wayne Cascio, a professor at CU Denver Business School, emphasizes the importance of accountability and transparency in announcing job cuts. 

Acknowledging the human cost of layoffs is paramount, particularly in light of companies’ own over-hiring practices post-pandemic.

In conclusion, as companies navigate the delicate terrain of layoffs, there’s a pressing need to strike a balance between corporate messaging and human empathy. While euphemisms may offer a semblance of protection, they ultimately fall short in addressing the profound impact of unemployment on individuals and communities. 

What do you think? Should companies be held accountable for the emotional impact of their word choices during layoffs?

What steps can employees take to ensure transparency and honesty from their employers during periods of downsizing? How do you think employees feel when they receive layoff notices cloaked in euphemistic language?

Do You Like This Article? Share It!