Unfortunately, they all go by one name.
Stealth layoffs, generically, are layoffs that firms don’t announce, and, when pressed, tend to deny (about which, much more later).
The confusion and difference comes from the motivation.
After the jump, we clarify the distinction and seek your help in defining the nomenclature.
The Classic Stealth Layoff
The classic stealth layoff has been an important feature of the law-firm structure for years. In a culture where “up or out” is critical, these were handled decently and professionally. Associates who weren’t on track for partnership were informed and given some period of time (six months wasn’t particularly long) to find other employment.
This was a mutually beneficial parting.
Partners would work their Rolodexes, proactively assisting in the search for subsequent employment. They would give positive recommendations, make introductions, pretty much everything they could to ensure that the associate landed on his feet. They would also accommodate interviewing schedules, shift new client work to other associates, and of course continue to provide the office, secretarial support, and phone number that are so critical to “finding your next job while you already have a job.”
In return the associate would continue to do his best work on the matters he had already been assigned, and wind his affairs up neatly. More importantly, he would not badmouth the firm, even if he wasn’t going to send work back to his former colleagues.
Partners got the attrition they needed, and the possibility of future engagements they crave. Associates got the training, experience, and introductions to embark on the next stage of their careers.
At the end of the day, there was very little shame in being the victim of a stealth layoff. It was a natural part of that “up or out” structure.
The Bastardization
Along comes the meltdown and a whole new breed of insidious practice gets lumped in under the term “stealth layoff.”
But this was no gentlemanly arrangement.
This was a purely selfish play by partners.
Associates were let go not because they weren’t expected to make partner, but because the partners had overleveraged staffing. The decisions aren’t based on individual lawyers’ potential, but on pure financial analysis. In fact, one of the worst features of this type of layoff is that lawyers are laid off before they’ve even had the chance to show their mettle.
Worse, when confronted with allegations of widespread layoffs of this ilk, firms have claimed that, to the extent there are any layoffs, they’re not the result of costcutting, but a “normal part of the performance review process” or some other platitude.
As we said a long time ago, the layoffs may technically be performance based, but that’s only because the standards were raised to meet economic goals.
Being blamed for your own layoff might be tolerable if partners were providing all the help they do under the classic stealth layoff, but under this arrangement, they’re too busy trying to spin their firms’ financial wellbeing. We’ve also heard abundant tales of continuing to assign new work and otherwise not being supportive of jobhunting.
Our Proposal
When we decry firms for stealth layoffs, we’re really talking about the latter. The former we understand and accept.
So how about we call the latter “Covert Layoffs”?
That way it’s clear that one type of firm is engaging in an acceptable practice, while the latter are engaging in self-serving behavior. Let’s remove the taint from stealth layoffs and not allow firms doing covert layoffs to enjoy any of the patina of acceptability of the traditional.
What do you think? Distinction without a difference? Is there a better adjective?
