Redundancy programmes (or one-off cases) are difficult for all concerned. Those being made redundant are obviously most directly affected and they should of course be treated sensitively and reasonably throughout the whole process. To do so the requirement for the proposed redundancies has to be carefully considered and an appropriate redundancy policy and a redundancy procedure should be put in place. Once the requirement is confirmed, it needs to be communicated just as carefully to the workforce at large. The worst possible start to any redundancy programme is for those affected to hear about the redundancies through the mass media before they are informed by their employer.

Once the decision has been taken, most organisations will find themselves seeking to achieve two partly contradictory objectives; firstly to get the whole thing over with as quickly as possible in order to minimise the impact on the business, customers and the other staff; and secondly to ensure that the redundancy procedures for selecting staff to be made redundant and the processes for implementing the redundancies, are as fair and reasonable as possible. This requirement is of course one which takes significant time and resources itself and has to satisfy certain legal requirements designed to protect the employees.

Additionally, and related to the second of these objectives, employers should consider that there are two other groups of staff who, whilst not directly caught by the redundancy requirement, are likely to be affected to a significant degree.

The colleagues, of those affected, particularly those in the same department, function, or location, are likely to become anxious about their own employment security. Some, particularly top performers, may consider jumping before they're pushed and start looking for other jobs. Others may simply become less committed to the organisation until it becomes clear whether or not they are safe; as a consequence sales or the quality of delivery may fall further - the very opposite of what's needed at such a time. Of course some may be spurred on in an effort to ensure they are not at risk.

The third group to be affected, will be the managers charged with managing and implementing the programme. They will have to become proficient in: the application of selection criteria, consultation with staff and their representatives and most difficult of all, communicating the bad news to those staff who have been selected.

It is therefore a primary requisite to square the circle as effectively as possible. A redundancy programme supported by a fair redundancy policy and redundancy procedure, which is over quickly and which is seen to have been implemented fairly, sensitively and reasonably is one most likely to minimise the adverse effects on the organisation as a whole. Of course the opposite is also true and should be avoided if at all possible.

Our track record

1993 - Design and implementation of nation-wide redundancy programme affecting 400 Retail staff

1996 - Design and implementation of redundancy programme affecting 600 Customer Service staff

2002 - Design and implementation of redundancy programme affecting 500 staff within an IT Services Company

2003 - Post merger of two IT Companies; design and implementation of redundancy programme affecting a further 700 staff

2004 - Management of further ad-hoc redundancies affecting senior managers

2005 - Advising High Technology Machines supplier on the implementation of redundancies within the Accounting function

2007 - Managed a redundancy programme for a new supplier to a major Financial information and media company following a change in supplier and the TUPE transfer of the operation

2008/9 - Advised manufacturer in the semi conductor sector on managing redundancies in response to a significant decline in business.