Why “how” matters more than “why” — lessons from the world’s worst and best layoffs
On March 31, 2026, at six o’clock in the morning, roughly 30,000 Oracle employees woke up to a terse email in their inbox. Sender: “Oracle Leadership.” Subject: their position had been eliminated. There was no prior warning, no face-to-face conversation with a direct manager, no opportunity to ask questions. The email swept through the global organisation in six minutes — and within six hours, Reddit, LinkedIn, and Glassdoor were flooded with the fallout. Oracle’s HR communication catastrophe became a textbook case within days of how NOT to conduct a layoff.
Barely a month earlier, Jack Dorsey, CEO of Block (formerly Square), announced on X (formerly Twitter) that the company would be letting go of nearly half its workforce — 4,000 people. The rationale: artificial intelligence had made their positions redundant. The share price jumped 26 percent. The remaining and departing employees were decidedly less optimistic.
These are not isolated events. According to Challenger, Gray & Christmas, US employers announced more than 1.1 million job cuts in 2025 — 54 percent more than the previous year and the highest figure since 2020. In the first quarter of 2026 alone, the tech sector shed 78,557 jobs. But a layoff is not merely a number. The way it is executed defines the organisation’s future — its employer brand, the loyalty of those who stay, litigation risk, and ultimately the company’s performance.
When communication destroys
The Oracle case is instructive because it contains every element that organisational psychology has warned against for decades. No one signed the email personally — the “Oracle Leadership” signature was institutional and cold. There was no context: corporate euphemisms like “broader organisational change” erode trust. There was no chance to say goodbye, to ask questions, to process the news. Those laid off were locked out of company systems immediately — some had not even finished their morning coffee.
The Careerminds 2025 Layoff Communications Report found that 70 percent of those laid off felt the reasoning was insufficiently transparent. Fifty-eight percent said the experience made them less likely to recommend their former employer to others. And 53 percent of surviving colleagues reported reduced trust in the organisation. A poorly communicated layoff, then, does not only affect those leaving — it poisons the motivation of those who remain.
“The six-minute email didn’t just change 30,000 lives — it changed how the world sees Oracle as an employer.”
When communication builds: the Airbnb and Nokia examples
In May 2020, Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky personally announced that 25 percent of the company’s 7,500 employees — 1,900 people — would have to be let go because of the pandemic. The contrast with Oracle was stark: Chesky wrote an open, personally-voiced letter explaining why these particular positions were being eliminated and what every affected employee would receive. Fourteen weeks’ severance plus one week per year of service. A year of health insurance. Outplacement support. A dedicated, public alumni talent directory to help those laid off find new roles. The result: Airbnb’s layoff communication was called a “master class” by the Harvard Business Review and LinkedIn alike. The company’s employer brand did not weaken — paradoxically, it strengthened.
Nokia laid off 18,000 people across 13 countries in 2011. But the company’s leadership decided that a layoff should not be an endpoint but a transition. They created the Bridge programme, whose goal was to ensure that every departing employee knew their next step before leaving the company. The programme offered five “bridges”: internal redeployment, retraining for a new role, start-up support, “new path” coaching, and — most boldly — financial backing for voluntary community projects. The programme cost 50 million euros — roughly 2,800 euros per person, just 4 percent of total restructuring costs. Productivity did not drop. Quality did not decline. Employees at layoff sites generated 3.4 billion euros in new product revenues during the programme.
What separates a “good” layoff from a “bad” one?
Not money. Oracle was not stingy with severance either. The difference is respect for human dignity. Three elements appear in every successful layoff and are absent from every failure.
First: the leader’s name and face. Chesky wrote and signed personally. Oracle sent its letter under “Leadership.” Careerminds research confirms: employees expect a named leader to own the decision — not a faceless institution.
Second: context and honesty. At Block, Dorsey stated openly: “AI means we don’t need this many people.” One can debate his sensitivity, but at least he was honest. The Oracle email was written in meaningless corporate language — and that is precisely what Glassdoor reviews punished.
Third: care beyond the exit. Airbnb created an alumni talent directory. Nokia offered five different career paths. Oracle locked systems immediately. The difference is not subjective — it is measurable in employer brand erosion, litigation risk, and the performance decline of those who stay.
The Hungarian reality
In Hungary, the rules for collective redundancy are set by the Labour Code (Mt.): a 30-day advance notification obligation to employee representatives, a notice period, and severance pay calibrated to length of service (one to six months’ salary). This is the statutory minimum — and most Hungarian companies do precisely that much. No more, no less.
Yet the stakes are the same as at Oracle or Airbnb. A 2025 HR Portál analysis noted that outplacement was widespread among multinationals in Hungary in the 1990s and 2000s, then faded into the background. Now, driven by the automotive crisis, AI-led restructurings, and the anticipated public procurement audits under the new Tisza government, it is resurfacing — not as a trend, but as a necessity. The Electrolux factory closure in Nyíregyháza in 2023 was one of the first cases where a company consciously launched a “caring layoff programme”: 600 employees were affected, with external expert partners, eight support areas, and a strategic agreement with the Government Office’s employment department.
The question, then, is not whether there will be layoffs — there will be. The question is whether Hungarian companies are prepared to execute them in a way that does not destroy what is most valuable: their employer brand, the trust of those who remain, and the organisation’s reputation in the labour market.
Closing thought
The six-minute email and the Bridge programme are two sides of the same coin. Both are layoffs. Both are painful. But in one, the employee leaves knowing they were a row in a spreadsheet; in the other, they leave knowing they were treated as a human being until the very end. Anyone facing a restructuring in 2026 would do well to consider: which story do they want to be in — and more importantly, which story do they want the remaining 60-80 percent of their workforce to be in?
Sources
- Newsweek — Oracle Layoffs As Thousands Wake To Surprise 6am Email
- HR Executive — Oracle layoffs hit via a 6 a.m. email
- CNN Business — Block lays off nearly half its staff because of AI
- Challenger, Gray & Christmas — March 2026 Job Cuts Report
- Careerminds — 2025 Layoff Communications Report
- Harvard Business School — Nokia’s Bridge Program: Redesigning Layoffs
- Medium / The Startup — Airbnb’s CEO Delivers Master Class on Layoffs
- HR Portál — Outplacement: divatba jön újra, vagy sosem tűnt el?
- HR Portál — Gondoskodó elbocsátás program az Electroluxnál
About the author: Orsolya Márton is Business Development Manager, Executive HR Consultant and Career Counsellor at HR Executives. She specialises in leadership advisory during organisational transitions, outplacement programme design, and compassionate workforce restructuring.
Contact: orsolya.marton@hrexecutives.hu