Menu

HRSpotlightTeam

Survey: 65% of Layoff Survivors Say Lack of Training Led to Costly Mistakes

by

HR NEWS

Survey: 65% of Layoff Survivors Say Lack of Training Led to Costly Mistakes

As economic uncertainty continues and US workforce reductions ripple across industries, a new survey from Kahoot! – the learning and engagement platform – reveals a critical blind spot in post-layoff workforce strategy: training for the employees who remain. 

While the focus is often on those who are let go, it is the survivors who are left to pick up the pieces with little to no support.

This comes at a time when workplace engagement in the U.S. has dropped to its lowest level in a decade, according to Gallup. New findings from Kahoot! show that organizational disruption, continued workforce and geopolitical volatility, and a lack of structured re-onboarding following a layoff are further fueling that decline, especially among younger employees.

According to the Kahoot! 2025 Layoff Survivor Survey, 65% of layoff survivors said they made a costly mistake or felt unprepared or hesitant to act at work due to a lack of training after layoffs. 

Among Gen Z employees, that number rises to 77 percent—highlighting how younger workers are feeling the impact most acutely. Seventy percent of all respondents said a structured re-onboarding program would have made the transition easier, yet only 27% received one.

“Surviving a layoff doesn’t mean surviving the impact,” said Eilert Hanoa, CEO of Kahoot!. “When companies cut headcount without supporting those who remain, they are not just risking morale and employee engagement. They are risking mistakes, missed opportunities, and lost talent. The knowledge that left with those layoffs is not easily replaced. Without proper re-onboarding, what is lost can ripple across the entire organization.”

Survey: 65% of Layoff Survivors Say Lack of Training Led to Costly Mistakes

Trial and error has replaced training and the hidden tax is falling on employees

Most employees weren’t just doing more after surviving a layoff. They were figuring it out as they went. Eighty-four percent said they spent time during the workweek teaching themselves how to handle new responsibilities. One in four spent more than four hours a week doing so.

Only 27% received structured training or orientation for their new responsibilities. The rest relied on informal support or none at all. Fifty-five percent leaned on peer learning, 44% learned through trial and error, and 28% turned to resources like YouTube or Google to help.

After the Workquake, the aftershock became the job

For many, the workload surge hit on day one. Sixty-one percent said their workload increased immediately after layoffs. That rose to 63% by the end of the first week. A month later, 60% were still carrying more work than before. What began as temporary coverage became the new job.

Despite the heavier lift, 42% said they were frequently or constantly assigned tasks outside their area of expertise without training. While senior-level executives (60%) were more likely to receive structured onboarding for new tasks, only 20% of individual contributors said the same.

“Quiet chaos” took over where leadership should have stepped in

Nearly half of layoff survivors (49%) reported a drop in morale and engagement. For many, the silence that followed was more damaging than the layoffs themselves. Nineteen percent said their motivation took a significant hit and that leadership offered no support. Another 30% said there was some effort to rebuild morale, but it didn’t go far enough.

Adding to the emotional toll, 48% said current global and economic tensions have made things worse. With no clear direction and mounting stress, the result is quiet chaos: unspoken burnout, growing disconnection, and leadership that isn’t showing up when it’s needed most.

The next round of exits will not be layoffs, they will be walkouts

The lack of training and support isn’t just affecting performance, it’s influencing retention. Only 24% said the absence of training and development would have no impact on their decision to stay. Forty-five percent said they would likely leave within the next year if training needs aren’t met. Another 31% said they would stay, but feel less committed to the company.

Younger employees are feeling this most. Seventy-two percent of Gen Z respondents said they’ve considered leaving due to increased pressure and limited support after layoffs.

When fear of judgment wins, learning loses

While 54% of employees said they feel comfortable asking leadership for help or training, the other 46% do not. Eighteen percent worry they’ll appear incompetent, 10% said no resources are available, and another 18% said it depends on the situation.

Despite these barriers, employees want to learn. Sixty percent said access to training improved their ability to contribute to company goals. Eighty percent said they’d be more likely to recommend their employer if learning and development were prioritized, revealing a powerful link between upskilling and loyalty.

About the Kahoot! 2025 Layoff Survivor Survey

This survey was conducted online by Researchscape on behalf of Kahoot! from April 24 to May 1, 2025, and includes responses from 1,064 full-time U.S. workers who experienced at least one company layoff in the past three years.

Do you wish to contribute to the next HR Spotlight article? Or is there an insight or idea you’d like to share with readers across the globe?

Write to us at connect@HRSpotlight.com, and our team will help you share your insights.

Recent Posts

Revisiting the UK Employment Rights Bill: A Workforce Strategy Shift in Progress

by

Revisiting the UK Employment Rights Bill: A Workforce Strategy Shift in Progress

Introduced on October 10, 2024, the UK’s Employment Rights Bill remains a transformative force, continuing to reshape workforce strategies as organizations adapt to its sweeping reforms. 

Tagged as the most significant overhaul of UK employment law in decades, the bill’s 28 measures—many slated for implementation by 2026—are driving HR leaders to rethink policies on flexibility, employee rights, and compliance. 

As businesses navigate this evolving landscape, the bill’s impact on economic growth, productivity, and workplace culture continues to unfold.

Revisiting the Bill’s Core Provisions

The Employment Rights Bill, part of the Labour government’s “Plan to Make Work Pay,” strengthens worker protections while aiming to balance economic stability. Key provisions include:

Day-One Protections: Employees gain immediate unfair dismissal rights, bypassing the previous two-year qualifying period, though a nine-month probationary period allows flexibility for employers. Parental, paternity, and bereavement leave are also day-one entitlements.

Flexible Working as Standard: Employers must now justify refusals of flexible working requests from day one, a shift from broader business exemptions. This covers hybrid, remote, or adjusted hours arrangements.

Zero-Hours Contract Reforms: Workers on zero-hours contracts, affecting up to 900,000 agency workers, can request guaranteed hours based on regular patterns, with compensation for short-notice shift changes or cancellations.

Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) Overhaul: SSP is now accessible from day one of illness, eliminating the three-day wait and £123 weekly earnings threshold, benefiting approximately 1.3 million low-paid workers.

Fire and Rehire Restrictions: Dismissals for refusing new contract terms are deemed unfair unless financial distress is proven, curbing exploitative practices.

Enhanced Worker Rights: Mandatory pay scale disclosure addresses gender pay gaps, third-party harassment protections are strengthened, and collective redundancy consultations now apply across an employer’s entire workforce.

Ongoing Impact on Workforce Strategy

As businesses approach the 2026 implementation timeline, the bill continues to challenge sectors like retail, logistics, and healthcare, which rely on shift-based or desk-free labor. A 2024 Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) survey of over 2,000 employers revealed that 79% anticipate rising costs due to unfair dismissal rules, SSP changes, and zero-hours contract reforms.

Evolving Labor Models: The shift away from zero-hours contracts has disrupted just-in-time staffing. HR Magazine noted that 53% of HR leaders may hesitate to hire inexperienced workers due to reduced flexibility, while 50% of desk-free workers value the stability of guaranteed hours.

Focus on Skills and Retention: Progressive employers are doubling down on skills development and inclusive hiring to address talent shortages. The CIPD reports that 29% of HR professionals prioritize employee engagement, with 26% focusing on retention to build resilient workforces.

Compliance Challenges Persist: The bill’s complexity burdens small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), many lacking robust HR infrastructure. A 2024 poll by The Workers’ Union found 92% of companies fear growth constraints or redundancies without sufficient government support.

Adapting HR Policies: Flexibility and Rights in Focus

HR leaders are refining policies to align with the bill’s emphasis on flexibility and employee protections, with several trends gaining traction:

Structured Flexible Working: Companies are formalizing hybrid and remote work frameworks, ensuring clear agreements to manage disruptions like connectivity issues. Amanda Chadwick, an HR expert, stresses robust systems for data security and performance tracking.

Prioritizing Well-Being: With workplace stress rising, mental health initiatives are critical. The bill’s deferred “right to switch off” signals future expectations, prompting employers to limit out-of-hours contact.

Pay Equity Measures: Mandatory pay scale disclosure pushes HR teams to audit compensation for gender, race, and disability gaps. Large employers (over 250 staff) must now publish equality action plans.

Proactive Training: Sexual harassment training is non-negotiable, with third-party harassment protections (effective October 2024) requiring risk assessments in public-facing roles.

Economic and Productivity Reflections

The government’s initial projection of a “small but positive” economic impact is under scrutiny, with business costs estimated at up to £5 billion annually. Some employers report reduced hiring willingness due to heightened risks, yet a University of Cambridge study highlights that stronger employment laws over the past 50 years have generally boosted retention and productivity. Centrica’s success with flexible working and parental support underscores the potential for cost savings through retention.

SMEs, however, continue to seek government guidance to manage financial pressures. The bill’s parliamentary progress, with amendments tabled as recently as March 2025, suggests ongoing tweaks, particularly around redundancy thresholds and SSP flexibility.

Looking Ahead to 2026

With most reforms set for 2026, businesses are using this period to prepare. The CIPD recommends phased policy updates, manager training, and investment in workforce management systems to ensure compliance. HR leaders are also urged to:

1. Update contracts to reflect day-one rights and flexible working mandates.

2. Implement predictable shift patterns to comply with zero-hours reforms.

3. Strengthen employee engagement through union collaboration and transparent communication.

4.Use analytics to track engagement, retention, and well-being metrics.

A Landmark Shift in Progress

The Employment Rights Bill reveals its enduring influence on UK workplaces, pushing organizations toward fairer, more flexible practices. 

While compliance challenges loom, particularly for SMEs, proactive adaptation offers a chance to build competitive, employee-centric workforces. 

As 2026 approaches, HR leaders must balance regulatory demands with strategic innovation to thrive in this transformed labor market.

Written by Grok with inputs from the HR Spotlight team and information sourced from GOV.UK, CIPD, HR Magazine, The Workers’ Union, Shoosmiths, Morgan Lewis, Avado, House of Commons Library, Pinsent Masons, BBC News, Tollers, British Safety Council, Gibson Dunn

Do you wish to contribute to the next HR Spotlight article? Or is there an insight or idea you’d like to share with readers across the globe?

Write to us at connect@HRSpotlight.com, and our team will help you share your insights.

Recent Posts

The Promotion Equation: Loyalty, Performance, and the Risk of Attrition

by

The Promotion Equation: Loyalty, Performance, and the Risk of Attrition

It is one of the most revealing dilemmas a manager can face, a choice that pits stability against raw talent. 

On one hand, you have the loyal, average performer—the steady pillar of the team who embodies the company culture but may have a limited performance ceiling. 

On the other, the high-achieving “flight risk”—a top performer who consistently drives exceptional results but whose ambition suggests they may not be around for the long haul.

Who do you promote?

This decision goes far beyond filling a single role; it sends a powerful message to the entire organization about what is truly valued: consistency and commitment, or game-changing, albeit potentially temporary, performance. 

In the competitive talent market of 2025, where retaining key employees is a paramount concern, this question has never been more urgent.

To navigate this complex issue, we turned to a panel of seasoned HR and business leaders and asked them to make the tough call:

“Would you promote a loyal yet average performer over a high-performing employee but potential flight risk? What are the strategic considerations driving your decision?”

Their responses are a masterclass in strategic thinking, revealing the delicate balance between managing risk, fostering culture, and driving results. Here’s how they would approach this timeless management crossroads.

Read on!

Ambrosio Arizu
Co-Founder & Managing Partner, Argoz Consultants

Ambrosio Arizu

If loyalty and organizational stability are priorities, promoting the loyal employee may be more beneficial, as their commitment can foster a solid and lasting work environment. However, if the goal is to drive immediate performance and innovation, a high-performing employee might be a better option, although with the concern of retaining them long-term.

In this case, a key consideration is the impact on the team: a loyal leader could inspire others to become more committed to the company, while a high performer may generate faster results but with the risk of losing talent in the future. The ideal approach would be to create an environment where both types of employees can grow, maintaining the commitment of the loyal ones while leveraging the performance of the more productive ones.

Kevandre (Dre) Thompson
Full Cycle Talent Acquisition Specialist, Innomotics

Kevandre (Dre) Thompson

I would lean towards promoting the loyal, average performer due to the value they bring in terms of stability, team cohesion, and long-term commitment.

I believe loyalty should be rewarded, and it usually translates to a deeper understanding of the company culture, processes, and the trust that comes with consistent performance.

Although high performers may bring immediate results, their potential flight risk can introduce uncertainty and disruption, especially if their concerns aren’t addressed in a timely manner.

By investing in a loyal, average performer, you ensure continuity within the team, which can be crucial in maintaining morale and retaining institutional knowledge (that can be passed on to new company joiners).

Lastly, with the right development and support, an average performer may have the potential to grow into a strong leader who can contribute to the company’s long-term success and objectives.

Steven Rodemer
Owner and Attorney, Rodemer & Kane

Steven Rodemer

Promotions are to further the long-term viability of a company, not to reward short-term gains. A good performer can attract strong numbers, but if he is a flight risk, his leaving the company can disrupt operations and morale. Leadership positions demand stability, trust, and loyalty to the future of the company.

An average but loyal performer provides valuable reliability. They understand the systems, culture, and team dynamics. However, reliability in itself is not sufficient. If they lack the potential to grow in the position, advancing them poses a risk of inefficiency. Good decision-making, flexibility, and inspiring others are necessary for leadership. If they possess growth potential, cultivating them can provide an opportunity to create a long-term leader who will remain in the company.

The optimal decision hinges on the larger picture. If the high achiever is already exploring other opportunities, their loyalty is short-term. A company succeeds with leaders who find a balance between performance and commitment. Selecting a candidate who builds a solid foundation for the company avoids disruption and guarantees long-term success.

Chintan Shah
President & Managing Partner, KNB Communications

Chintan Shah

Always promote the high performer. The risk of losing them may be higher–but so is the cost of keeping them stagnant.

Loyalty is valuable, but it can’t outweigh impact.

The best way to retain your top talent is to challenge, reward, and promote them at the pace of their ambition. It keeps them engaged, and it also sends a message to the rest of the team that great work earns growth.

Jo Trizila
Founder & CEO, TrizCom PR

Jo Trizila

While it might seem like a no-brainer to promote the over-achieving employee, I can say without pause loyalty is an invaluable asset that’s difficult to cultivate and replace.

From my experience owning and running a successful PR firm for the past 18 years, TrizCom PR, loyalty, while not as immediately quantifiable as performance metrics, contributes significantly to an organization’s long-term stability and culture.

A loyal employee may exceed expectations when given greater responsibility and also enhance team morale and commitment.

We have always tried to promote based on loyalty, alongside performance, which has benefited our company, reinforcing a culture that values growth and dedication.

Joan Denizot
Owner, Body Ready

Joan Denizot

When deciding between promoting a loyal yet average performer and a high-performing employee who is a flight risk, I believe the key factor is long-term business stability.

While high performers can drive immediate results, their potential departure poses risks such as operational disruptions and costly recruitment.

Loyal employees, even if not top performers, often provide stability, institutional knowledge, and cultural continuity. If they show potential for growth, investing in their development can yield long-term benefits.

However, if the high performer aligns with company goals and can be retained through incentives or career growth opportunities, promoting them may be a more strategic choice.

Ultimately, the decision should balance performance impact with organizational stability, ensuring that the promoted employee contributes to the company’s sustained success.

Austin Rulfs
Founder, Zanda Wealth

Austin Rulfs

From my experience, whether to promote a loyal average performer or a high-performing employee with flight risk relies greatly on the larger context.

Loyalty is a significant strength, particularly in a company that is driven by long-term relationships, such as property investment and finance. Nevertheless, a high performer with great potential might yield short-term benefits, but if they jump ship shortly after promotion, it might lead to disruptions.

It’s about balancing immediate needs with long-term sustainability. In some cases, promoting the loyal employee could strengthen team morale, reduce turnover, and maintain stability.

But if a high performer’s contributions are significantly impactful, I’d work on strategies to retain them, perhaps offering incentives or career development opportunities to address their flight risk.

Paul Koenigsberg
Attorney, Koenigsberg & Associates

Paul Koenigsberg

I would promote a loyal yet average performer if they have shown enough consistency to be trusted with more strategic things. 

However, that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t consider promoting the potential flight risk but high-performing employee. This is very often the case with high performers. They are potential flight risks because they are often misunderstood. 

Sometimes, leaders can see enough promise in a person to actually take that risk just to see where it would lead, even if that meant putting out fires indefinitely.

It all comes down to what the team needs and what kind of risk is worth taking. 

A loyal, steady performer can be the backbone of stability, while a high performer, especially one on the edge of leaving, can either push the team to new heights or create chaos. 

The real challenge for leadership is knowing when to bet on potential and when to double down on reliability. 

Sometimes, the right move isn’t just about performance but about who will step up when it really counts.

Hayden Cohen
CEO, Hire With Near

Hayden Cohen

The answer here depends a lot on what kind of promotion we’re talking about. Loyal-yet-average workers often make great managers.

They may lack some of the raw talent of their peers, but if they’re good with people and committed to the organization and its culture, management may be the ideal place for them. On the flip side of this, promoting flight risks can be a good way to keep them around, as long as a promotion is what they’re after. If I suspect that someone’s going to leave shortly after being promoted, I’ll definitely go with the more loyal person.

Rearranging staffing causes disruptions, and those are expensive. If a promotion will keep them around, though, then it can be a smart move.

Jason Hennessey
CEO, Hennessey Digital

Jason Hennessey

Business decisions should be strategic, not emotional. Promoting a loyal but average performer can limit growth. Losing a high performer can hurt momentum. I would first analyze their long-term potential. If the high performer can be retained, I’d make that my focus. If the loyal employee is coachable, I’d consider them. A promotion should benefit both the individual and the company. Stability and performance should always complement each other.

Strong teams need a balance of reliability and excellence. Promotions should drive performance, not just maintain comfort. If neither candidate fits leadership, I’d develop another. Investing in leadership development ensures long-term success. Retaining top talent is more cost-effective than replacing them. Loyalty without growth is a risk. A company thrives on smart leadership decisions. A strong leader creates lasting impact.

The HR Spotlight team thanks these industry leaders for offering their expertise and experience and sharing these insights.

Do you wish to contribute to the next HR Spotlight article? Or is there an insight or idea you’d like to share with readers across the globe?

Write to us at connect@HRSpotlight.com, and our team will help you share your insights.

Recent Posts

New York Becomes First State to Mandate AI and Automation Disclosure in Layoffs

by

HR NEWS

New York Becomes First State to Mandate AI and Automation Disclosure in Layoffs

June 17, 2025 — In a pioneering move, New York has become the first U.S. state to require employers to disclose whether artificial intelligence (AI) or automation contributes to mass layoffs, a step aimed at enhancing workforce transparency and understanding the impact of technology on jobs.

The new requirement, which took effect in March 2025, is part of an amendment to the state’s Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, announced by Governor Kathy Hochul during her January 2025 State of the State address.

New York Becomes First State to Mandate AI and Automation Disclosure in Layoffs

The New Rule: A Checkbox for Transparency

Under the updated NY WARN Act, employers with 50 or more employees must file a notice at least 90 days before a mass layoff or plant closure affecting at least 25 workers or one-third of the workforce at a single site. The new mandate adds a checkbox to the WARN form, requiring companies to indicate if “technological innovation or automation” is a reason for the layoffs. If checked, employers must specify the technology involved, such as AI or robotics.

This contrasts with the federal WARN Act, which applies to companies with 100 or more employees and requires 60 days’ notice for layoffs of 50 or more workers but does not mandate disclosure of reasons. New York’s stricter requirements aim to provide workers and policymakers with critical data to address job displacement caused by automation.

Governor Hochul emphasized the dual goals of the policy: “The primary goals are to aid transparency and gather data on the impact of AI technologies on employment and to ensure the integration of AI tools into the workforce creates an environment where workers can thrive.” The state’s Department of Labor (DOL) will use the data to inform reskilling programs and economic policies, though defining an “AI-related layoff” remains a challenge, as noted by Labor Commissioner Roberta Reardon.

Why It Matters: AI’s Growing Impact on Jobs

The rise of AI has sparked widespread concern about job displacement across industries. A 2024 International Monetary Fund report estimated that AI could affect nearly 40% of jobs globally, with half potentially facing automation-driven displacement. In the U.S., industries like finance, tech, and customer service are increasingly adopting AI, leading to efficiency gains but also workforce reductions. For instance, a recent report noted that global banks could lose up to 200,000 jobs in the coming years due to automation, while companies like Meta and IBM have announced layoffs tied to AI adoption.

In New York, where AI is projected to drive $320 billion in economic growth by 2038, the state is balancing innovation with worker protections. The disclosure requirement aims to provide clarity on how AI is reshaping the labor market. As of June 2025, no companies filing WARN notices in New York have reported AI as a cause for layoffs, possibly due to the rule’s newness or employers’ reluctance to admit AI’s role.

Experts see this as a critical step. Michael Jakowsky, an employment attorney with Jackson Lewis PC, told Bloomberg Law, “The policy is trying to get a handle on what’s going on behind the scenes so they can better understand the economic impact of AI.” However, he noted that the policy’s success depends on employers accurately reporting AI’s role, which may be complicated by mixed factors like market conditions.

Implications for Employers and Workers

For employers, the mandate introduces new compliance obligations. Companies must now navigate potential public relations challenges when admitting AI-driven layoffs, which could impact brand reputation and employee morale. However, transparency could foster trust with workers and the public.

Legal and HR leaders are advised to assess how AI tools are used and their impact on headcount, job satisfaction, and morale to ensure compliance. Shawn Matthew Clark, an attorney at Littler, noted, “This is one more content obligation added to the already complex notice requirements under NY WARN.”

For workers, the 90-day notice period creates a window for proactive reskilling. The policy also requires employers to provide affected workers with access to workforce training programs when AI is a factor in layoffs. This aligns with findings from the World Economic Forum, which reported that 63% of employers see skill gaps as a major barrier to business transformation through 2030.

Broader Context: AI Regulation in the Workplace

New York’s move is part of a growing trend to regulate AI in employment. In 2021, New York City passed Local Law 144, requiring bias audits for automated employment decision tools (AEDTs) used in hiring and promotions. Other states, like Colorado and Illinois, have enacted laws to prevent algorithmic discrimination in AI-driven employment decisions, while California has proposed similar measures.

At the federal level, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued guidance in 2023 on AI’s potential for adverse impact in workplace decisions, though recent rollbacks under the Trump administration have shifted focus to state-level regulations. New York’s law could set a precedent for other states considering similar measures.

Challenges and Criticisms

The policy has potential shortcomings. It only applies to mass layoffs, missing smaller AI-driven job cuts, and its effectiveness hinges on employers’ willingness to report accurately. 

Kevin Frazier, a scholar cited by Bloomberg, questioned, “How do you point to a single job and say this job loss was caused by AI, rather than market conditions or other factors?” 

Critics also argue that the added compliance burden could slow AI integration, though supporters counter that it encourages responsible adoption.

Looking Ahead

New York’s AI disclosure mandate marks a bold step toward addressing the human cost of automation. 

By collecting real data on AI’s impact, the state aims to craft policies that support displaced workers while fostering innovation. 

As other states and federal regulators observe New York’s outcomes, this policy could spark a nationwide framework for managing AI’s role in the workforce. 

For now, HR professionals, employers, and workers in New York must adapt to a new era of transparency in the age of AI.

Written by Grok with inputs from the HR Spotlight team and information sourced from Bloomberg Law, New York State Government, New York State Department of Labor (DOL), International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Economic Forum (WEF), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), New York City Local Law 144, General Web Sources.

Do you wish to contribute to the next HR Spotlight article? Or is there an insight or idea you’d like to share with readers across the globe?

Write to us at connect@HRSpotlight.com, and our team will help you share your insights.

Recent Posts

The DEI Dilemma: Experts Reveal Outcomes of Corporate Retreats

by

The DEI Dilemma: Experts Reveal Outcomes of Corporate Retreats

What happens when a company’s commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is put to the test? As some organizations begin to dial back their DEI programs, we are witnessing a real-time stress test of corporate values versus financial and political pressures. This moment of reckoning raises crucial questions about the future of workplace culture.

We asked a group of DEI experts, HR professionals, and business leaders to help navigate this uncertainty. They cautioned against the profound risks of losing momentum—eroded trust, stifled innovation, and a disengaged workforce. However, they also explored how this challenging period can serve as a catalyst for building more resilient, intentional, and impactful approaches to inclusion.

Discover their insights on the path forward, balancing pragmatic challenges with the non-negotiable need for progress.

Read on!

Dr. Qiana O’Leary
CEO & Founder, Minty Education Service

Dr. Qiana O’Leary

As CEO of Minty Educational Services and Instructional Assistant Professor at Texas A&M International University, my work sits at the intersection of culturally responsive leadership, educator wellness, and sustainable work culture.

My research is grounded in conversational leadership, an approach that centers intimacy, interactivity, inclusion, and intentionality as core elements of how leaders communicate and build trust.

Through this lens, inclusion is not an initiative.

It’s a way of being. A daily practice. It’s how we show up.

So when organizations scale back DEI efforts, they’re not just stepping away from a program. They’re signaling that equity is optional. And that message carries consequences: broken trust, lowered morale, and cultures that become performative rather than people-centered.

Conversational leadership offers a more sustainable path. One that isn’t reactive to political winds but rooted in the values that make organizations strong. Honest dialogue. Shared power. A commitment to belonging that doesn’t waiver.

This is the kind of leadership that holds. And this is the work we do at Minty.

Sara Thomas
Advisor, Mother Cover

Tabitha Ziegmann

When organizations choose to scale back DEI initiatives, they will likely face consequences that will impact them well beyond the surface metrics. When comprehensive support systems are dismantled, women and underrepresented employees bear the brunt of the impact.

Take structured parental leave policies as an example. When these programs are diminished, it’s women who are impacted the most as they typically shoulder the caregiving responsibilities. When this happens it leads to career interruptions that directly impact pay equity and create challenges that have long term effects, including: reduced participation in professional development, limited advancement opportunities, and widened wage gaps.

Similarly, cutting flexible work arrangements removes the very accommodations that help diverse talent balance personal responsibilities. McKinsey’s “Diversity Wins” report confirms the business case: companies in the top quartile for ethnic diversity are 36% more likely to outperform peers on profitability, while those leading in gender diversity see 25% better financial returns.

Forward-thinking organizations recognize the value in these benefits and do not view them as dispensable costs but as interconnected systems that create equitable workplaces where all employees can contribute their full potential while also managing their personal lives.

It’s in these environments where organizations and people come together driving innovation, retention, and sustainable growth.

Hayden Cohen
CEO, Hire With Near

Hayden Cohen

There are some short-term gains to be made here, but this is going to hurt businesses in the long term. 

Cutting DEI initiatives now may let companies eliminate some positions in HR and perhaps get on the good side of the current administration and their supporters, but it’s important to remember that the core of DEI is smart business. 

It’s about finding the best talent at the best price. 

Historically, women and minorities are underpaid and under-represented in leadership. 

I call that a market inefficiency to take advantage of.

Shannon Estreller
Director of People, EvolveMKD

Shannon Estreller

Scaling back DEI initiatives can have significant negative consequences for organizations, particularly in terms of engagement and retention. Employees who feel valued and included are more engaged and productive.

I think there’s a misconception about how DEI initiatives show up in the workplace.

At EvolveMKD, we understand that a workplace prioritizing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion isn’t just checking a box—it’s creating a space where everyone can thrive. And our actions speak louder than words.

Our holistic approach to DEI is reflected in our benefits, employee wellness programs and philanthropy. For instance, our Annual Medical & Wellness reimbursement covers ad hoc childcare, birth & postpartum doula services, mental health therapy, physical therapy, and pet wellness.

Our Life Event Benefit supports family planning, reproductive health, and gender-affirming care, while our Paid Reproductive Loss Leave provides support during challenging times. We also celebrate and support DEI through cultural celebrations, community volunteer work, and targeted donations.

These initiatives are not standalone efforts but are woven into the fabric of our organization, ensuring that all employees and our local community feel valued and empowered. This commitment has led to a significant increase in our retention rate year over year.

Doug Crawford
Founder, Best Trade School.net

Doug Crawford

In the long term, scaling back DEI efforts could also limit the diversity of talent an organization attracts.

Today, candidates, especially those just entering the workforce, are looking for employers who are committed to inclusivity and equal opportunities. If a company pulls back on its DEI initiatives, it might struggle to compete for top talent, particularly from younger generations who value these principles.

Organizations might find that their efforts to cut costs or streamline initiatives may end up costing them in employee satisfaction and talent retention in the long run.

These programs aren’t just about ticking a box; they’re an important part of creating a positive and productive workplace.

Robert Grunnah
Owner, Austin House Buyer.

Robert Grunnah

In the real estate game, trust is currency—and trust is built when people feel seen, respected, and represented. That’s something DEI efforts help foster, whether you’re closing deals or running teams.

Cutting back on DEI might save money in the short term, but it could cost a lot more in the long run. When businesses quietly move away from being welcoming, they send the message that joining is up for grabs, whether they mean to or not. That lowers confidence, turns away the best people, and stops new ideas from coming up.

Different kinds of people on my team have seen deals that other teams missed because they saw them through a different set of eyes. I once worked with a bilingual agent who helped us reach a market group we hadn’t been able to reach before. Without her help, we would have missed out on six figures in sales.

That wasn’t just DEI on paper; that was the return on inclusion in the real world. Pulling back right now is not only dangerous but also not smart. Businesses don’t need tools that do things. They need strategies that are focused on people and change along with the areas they serve.

Harpreet Saini
CEO, We Buy Houses in Metro Detroit

Harpreet Saini

As the CEO of a real estate investment company with a diverse workforce, I’ve had the opportunity to see firsthand how DEI initiatives have evolved and draw conclusions from data regarding their impact on their business.

The pullback from DEI initiatives now is a concerning trend that overlooks considerable business value.

According to McKinsey’s 2023 diversity report, more-diverse firms capture 19% more revenue from innovation and 35% better financial performance. By backing away from structured DEI initiatives, organizations risk losing these competitive differentiators that bring bottom-line achievement.

Firms that are reducing DEI efforts most typically reference budget or political reasons. Still, our experience is that incorporating diversity values into core business processes rather than discrete projects costs less to implement and is more successful.

We’ve found that incorporating inclusive practices into existing business processes results in employees being retained for 27% longer and 31% higher customer satisfaction rates in ethnically diverse communities where cultural competence directly impacts transaction success.

The worst possible consequence is the talent flight when companies send signals of diminished commitment to inclusion. Our industry research indicates that companies publicly retreating from DEI initiatives see a 42% increase in resignation rates of high-performing underrepresented group employees in six months.

This talent loss has measurable recruitment costs of $45,000-$150,000 per role while decreasing organizational knowledge and capability.

Rather than binary “all-in or all-out” DEI approaches, more progressive organizations are embracing integration models in which inclusive practices are incorporated into mainline business operations rather than existing as freestanding programs.

This has allowed our organization to have different points of view that drive innovation without politicizing the problems that tend to ensnare freestanding DEI departments.

Jonathan Palley
CEO, QR Codes Unlimited

Jonathan Palley

I definitely think that DEI is a good idea, but there have been some really bad implementations of it.

I know that the backlash to DEI isn’t being driven so much by, say, a bad HR training as by deeper racial animus, but I think it’s important to acknowledge that, while DEI was a good idea, it wasn’t working for a lot of people.

I do hope that DEI survives and moves forward, but it needs to improve.

Edward Hones
Founder, Hones Law

Edward Hones

Short-Term Optics vs. Long-Term Risk: Scaling back DEI initiatives might feel like a safe move in the face of political or economic pressure, but from my perspective as an employment lawyer, it’s a legally and culturally shortsighted decision.

When companies pull back on DEI, they may reduce immediate public scrutiny, but they often increase their long-term exposure to discrimination claims, retention issues, and internal morale breakdowns.

I’ve seen firsthand how organizations that deprioritize inclusion begin to quietly lose top talent, especially from underrepresented groups.

The risk isn’t just about optics, it’s about losing the trust of your workforce.

DEI as a Legal and Strategic Imperative: I advise clients to see DEI not as a trend, but as part of their risk management and talent strategy. It’s about creating systems that help everyone thrive, which in turn reduces liability and drives innovation.

Organizations that proactively invest in equitable practices tend to experience fewer legal disputes because they’re addressing root causes before they escalate.

If leadership treats DEI like a PR campaign rather than a core value, it will always be the first thing cut, and that’s where real damage begins.

The companies that stay the course will be the ones best positioned for long-term success and legal resilience.

Emma Sinclair MBE
CEO, EnterpriseAlumni

Emma Sinclair

Companies scaling back DEI initiatives are going to have a major talent problem in the medium term.

These companies that don’t make an effort to include women, returnees, carers, minorities will find that they have less boomerang hires, referrals, evangelists and advocates.

Talent is the number one challenge and need for all businesses – so it’s a short-term own goal.

The HR Spotlight team thanks these industry leaders for offering their expertise and experience and sharing these insights.

Do you wish to contribute to the next HR Spotlight article? Or is there an insight or idea you’d like to share with readers across the globe?

Write to us at connect@HRSpotlight.com, and our team will help you share your insights.

Recent Posts

The Human Side: HR Strategies for Layoffs and Transitions

by

The Human Side: HR Strategies for Layoffs and Transitions

This year, the workforce got hit hard with over 61,000 layoffs at big names like Walmart and Microsoft, fueled by shaky economies and the fast rise of automation and AI.

According to SHRM, 60% of those let go are finding it tough to land new jobs, pushing companies to rethink how they manage their people.

HR pros and business leaders are stepping in, focusing on training to keep employees on board and offering real support for those leaving.

In this article, the HR Spotlight team digs into answers with a key question:
“How is your company cutting down on layoffs or helping workers move on?”

From creative programs to shift talent within the organization to thoughtful outplacement support, see how forward-thinking businesses are tackling this tough time to strengthen their teams and stand by their people.

Read on!

Margaret Buj
Principal Recruiter, Mixmax

Margaret Buj – Mixmax

At Mixmax, we’ve been fortunate to grow sustainably. One of the ways we’ve minimized layoffs is by hiring responsibly and maintaining a lean, efficient team. We often hire contractors first-which gives both sides flexibility-before expanding full-time headcount.

When changes have occurred, transparency has been key. In my coaching work at Kadima Careers, I’ve supported many professionals post-layoff, and what I’ve seen work best (and encourage companies to do) includes:

  • Internal mobility and upskilling, so employees can pivot before roles are cut.
  • Proactive career coaching or transition support to help people find roles faster.
  • Encouraging employees to keep their networks warm and LinkedIn profiles strong—especially in uncertain markets.

Upskilling + proactive transparency = lower attrition and stronger long-term engagement.

Tammy Sons
Founder & CEO, TN Nursery

Tammy Sons – TN Nursery

Growing people in my business requires the same patience and intention I use to grow plants. Instead of letting downturns dictate layoffs, I concentrate on cross-training employees while developing abilities that meet our changing business requirements.

Our team adapts to shifting roles by providing members with fresh opportunities inside the company. Encouraging open discussions about goals and growth enables people to perceive transitions as steps forward instead of setbacks.

Our smaller size compared to major tech companies enables us to dedicate personal attention to each employee’s professional path.

True resilience develops through establishing strong foundations while expanding into new directions rather than reducing scope.

Miriam Groom
CEO, Mindful Career

Miriam Groom – Mindful Career

The tech world is facing a reckoning. With over 61,000 layoffs in 2025 from major players like Walmart and Microsoft, the ripple effects are being felt across industries. According to SHRM, 60% of laid-off workers are still struggling to land new roles, and the emotional toll is immense.

At Mindful Career, we’ve supported hundreds of professionals through these very moments—engineers, UX designers, project leads—who walked out of one chapter unsure if the next one would even come. Our focus has never been just about job placement—it’s about career healing, reinvention, and human-centered strategy.

Our approach to reducing the impact of layoffs and aiding career transitions is twofold: individual transformation and organizational readiness.

For individuals, we provide structured support that helps them reclaim agency after sudden loss. This includes:

  • Behavioral profiling to uncover transferable strengths.
  • Career narrative rebuilding to reshape personal branding post-layoff.
  • Targeted upskilling pathways based on real-time labor market data.
  • One-on-one coaching focused on mindset, clarity, and re-entry strategy.

On the organizational side, we partner with HR teams to offer outplacement services, internal mobility consulting, and leadership support during restructuring. We help employers communicate layoffs with empathy, coach remaining staff through survivor’s guilt, and equip leaders to retain morale while making hard decisions.

One client, a senior product manager laid off from a retail-tech startup, came to us overwhelmed and emotionally burnt out. 

Within four sessions, she gained clarity around her non-negotiables, reframed her career goals, and secured a leadership role in a sustainability-focused company—an outcome more aligned with her values than her previous role had ever been. 

We’ve also supported internal HR partners from industries like fintech and healthtech in developing talent retention playbooks, helping them identify at-risk talent early and re-engage them through customized development plans—avoiding turnover altogether.

Layoffs are more than a business decision—they’re a rupture in someone’s story. At Mindful Career, we believe in meeting that moment not with generic advice, but with strategic clarity, deep listening, and personalized reinvention pathways.

Whether we’re working directly with jobseekers or advising HR teams post-restructure, our mission remains the same: to restore meaning, momentum, and confidence—one person at a time.

Volen Vulkov
Co-founder, Enhancv

Volen Vulkov – Enhancv

I still remember the first time I had to tell a talented colleague that her role was being eliminated. The look on her face stayed with me, and it changed how I think about layoffs.

Since then, I’ve pushed for open conversations about skill gaps and shifting business needs, rather than waiting for a crisis to force our hand.

Sometimes, that means sitting down with someone months before a change and mapping out a plan for them to learn something new or try a stretch assignment.

Our team has started pairing people from at-risk departments with mentors in growing areas of the company. One analyst who once felt stuck in a shrinking division now leads a data project that didn’t exist last year.

Watching her confidence grow as she learned on the job reminded me that upskilling isn’t just about saving jobs, it’s about helping people see themselves in a new light.

When transitions can’t be avoided, we focus on practical support. I’ve helped colleagues rewrite their resumes and even practiced interview questions with them.

Sometimes, just knowing someone is in your corner makes the next step feel less daunting. My hope is that by being proactive and personal, we make tough moments a little easier to bear, for everyone involved.

Josh Riutta
Owner, Mikku and Sons Roofing

Josh Riutta – Mikku and Sons Roofing

As a general contractor and professional roofer, the current economic climate, particularly the significant tech layoffs in 2025, presents both challenges and opportunities.

While our industry isn’t directly impacted by tech sector fluctuations, the ripple effect on the job market and overall consumer confidence is undeniable. Our organization is proactively addressing these trends through a two-pronged approach focused on workforce stability and community support.

Firstly, we prioritize internal upskilling and diversification. Rather than facing potential layoffs, we invest in cross-training our existing crews in various aspects of general contracting beyond just roofing. This includes siding installation, minor structural repairs, and even basic carpentry. This not only enhances their individual skill sets and value but also allows us to offer a wider range of services, making our company more resilient to shifts in demand for specific trades.

Secondly, we’re exploring partnerships with local trade schools and community organizations to offer apprenticeship programs and transitional support for individuals from other sectors looking to enter the skilled trades. We believe in providing pathways for those impacted by layoffs to acquire valuable, hands-on skills that are consistently in demand, contributing to a stronger, more adaptable local workforce.

Chris Desino
Owner, Ocala Horse Properties

Chris Desino – Ocala Horse Properties

At Ocala Horse Properties, we believe that layoffs aren’t just numbers, they’re people, families, and futures.

In an industry shaped by luxury, loyalty is our real currency.

Rather than downsizing, we cross-train our staff across marketing, client services, and property management to build multi-skilled teams with long-term value.

When the market slows, instead of letting people go, we shift their focus, training agents in digital real estate, investing in personal branding workshops, and encouraging side ventures we help co-incubate.

It’s unconventional, but it works.

Real estate is cyclical, but our talent strategy doesn’t have to be. We don’t just protect jobs, we future-proof people.

Renante Hayes
Executive Director, Creloaded

Renante Hayes – Creloaded

Having personally navigated the dot-com crash early in my career, I’ve implemented preemptive strategies at our organization that have eliminated the need for layoffs entirely.

We’ve established a cross-training program where team members develop skills across multiple departments, creating versatility that prevents obsolescence. Our quarterly skills assessment identifies emerging technology gaps, allowing us to proactively upskill employees before their roles become vulnerable.

For the broader tech community, we’ve launched a transition assistance platform offering free skills assessments, resume rebuilding, and introductions to our hiring partner network for displaced workers. This initiative has helped over 300 laid-off professionals find new positions within 45 days.

Christopher Migliaccio
Founder, Warren and Migliaccio L.L.P

Christopher Migliaccio – Warren and Migliaccio LLP

At Warren and Migliaccio, we prioritize retention by cross-training staff across multiple practice areas—this flexibility allows us to redistribute workload during downturns rather than resorting to layoffs.

We also maintain a proactive talent pipeline, so we’re never over-hiring based on short-term booms.

For team members considering transitions, we offer resume guidance, professional references, and flexible exit timelines.

It’s not just about saving jobs—it’s about investing in long-term professional resilience for everyone on the team.

Robbin Schuchmann
Co-founder, EOR Overview

Robbin Schuchmann – EOR Overview

Helping a client in the tech sector recently, I saw how leveraging Employer of Record (EOR) services eased transitions during workforce adjustments.

They faced a wave of layoffs but managed to retain critical talent by shifting some roles to remote positions in countries with lower operational costs, all while ensuring full compliance with local labor laws.

The EOR handled payroll, benefits, and legal employment responsibilities, which allowed the client to redeploy employees rather than let them go outright.

This approach softened the impact of layoffs and kept valuable skills within reach, giving the company time to upskill and reskill staff for future needs.

Supporting transitions means creating flexibility in employment models. By using EORs, companies can tap into global talent pools quickly and compliantly, which helps reduce the pressure to downsize domestically.

This strategy not only aids employees in finding new roles faster but also helps businesses maintain continuity and morale during uncertain times. It’s a practical way to bridge gaps in workforce demand without the full disruption of layoffs.

David Hunt
COO, Versys Media

David Hunt – Versys Media

At Versys Media, we’ve prioritized skills development over layoffs by fostering a culture of continuous learning.

We offer various training programs that align with evolving industry trends, particularly in digital marketing and web development.

For instance, our recent initiative involved upskilling team members in emerging technologies like AI and data-driven marketing strategies. This not only equips our employees with in-demand skills but also strengthens our service offerings to clients.

By investing in our team’s growth, we mitigate the risk of layoffs during challenging times and improve retention rates.

We believe that empowering employees is key to navigating economic fluctuations and maintaining a competitive edge.

The HR Spotlight team thanks these industry leaders for offering their expertise and experience and sharing these insights.

Do you wish to contribute to the next HR Spotlight article? Or is there an insight or idea you’d like to share with readers across the globe?

Write to us at connect@HRSpotlight.com, and our team will help you share your insights.

Recent Posts