The week that was: week 49, 2021.
“If you are on this call, you are part of the unlucky group…” said Vishal Garg when he fired 900 employees on a zoom call.
Last week the CEO of better.com, Vishal Garg, decided to fire 900 employees over a zoom call. One of the employees attending the meeting recorded it, made it public and such a thing had to go viral. The criticism flowed immediately after the video hit social media. Most of the voices fell into three categories. Firstly, the impersonal nature of the communication. It was over zoom and mass communication, not individually, not even to teams or functions. It was 900 employees together on the call who were told that they are the “unlucky group”. They were told that they will receive email from HR about this, not a call, not a discussion but email telling them they are fired sharing their severance and extended benefits. Second set of criticism is around doing this three weeks before Christmas/ holiday season. It just spoilt the holiday season for the real unfortunate ones who have a lot of financial stress, family to take care of and everyone on Christmas break, barely any jobs to be interviewed for. Thirdly, this was done right after the company is announcing they are planning to go public and that they just received nearly a billion in funds from investor.
And it didn’t end at just the less than three minute call. He went out to label employees as “cheating” by working less than 8 hours in a day. The can of worms kept flowing with evidence of his email outburst, that he has fired his D&I team and more.
The result – he has apologised for “blundered execution”, he has taken time off, three top executives have resigned and the company has hired third party to conduct leadership and culture assessment. It is such a disaster to manage.
It is not easy to fire, not even for the hardened full-of-themselves narcissists. My first reaction was to search who the poor CHRO of the company is/ was. I wondered how he/she would’ve handled this discussion with Vishal – did he/she say how absurd the idea of firing on zoom was. And then I wondered if Vishal even seek suggestions on right way to break such news.
As someone who has fired people, a number I refuse to ever publicly share, there is no good way to do it. But there surely are bad ways such as demonstrated by Vishal. I have learnt that while communication is critical, Leadership communication is whole another level important. A major chunk of what leaders do depends on how and what they say then why is it taken as lightly as this. Most companies don’t give it the importance it deserves. Most leaders don’t think it matters as much until something breaks. And break it did for Vishal.
While things are mostly done with good intentions – there are very few cruella’s in this world. Intent needs to be conveyed appropriately through actions and words. Intent alone does not make a good leader.
Here is my analysis with view on approaching such difficult communication –
1. Authenticity matters: It takes courage to take responsibility but it also displays narcissism of certain level to take full responsibility and then posting about 250 people cheating by working only 2 hours instead of 8. If you believe truly that the reason to fire was lack of productivity and performance then there is no need to take responsibility for the decision. The decision is result of certain issues that negatively impact the company and not taken by a person.
2. Empathy matters: I have found several leaders preaching empathy but not demonstrating it. If you are not naturally empathetic then you can’t truly be empathetic. But with practice, you can behave empathetically. Focus on people, consider how your words and actions impact people specially when you are this visible! Don’t behave like a jerk in the ruse of ‘someone has to be tough’ or ‘I’m only sharing the truth’.
3. Zoom is NEVER okay: it is not easy to decide how to give bad news. You can either publicly announce that there will be layoffs and then communicate to individuals or you can just do it quietly and then announce after the fact. You can fence your critical people by reassuring them of job security and then fire those who need to go. Either way a mass layoff over zoom is not okay. In my experience, quiet communication is always better. Once the layoff communication is over, assure the rest of the employees of their employment. Explain the reasons of why it happened but don’t ever beat the fallen. Quiet is better when some people want to leave in a dignified manner, it is better because it gives people a chance to reach out to their superiors to seek closure, it is better because it does not insult people publicly that they were not good enough, it is better because people can then manage the stigma. Firing is viewed badly in several cultures and sometimes it can be difficult for the person to find next job. But mostly it is about closure. This zoom call and immediate shutdown of official account access left 900 people feeling cheated (to use Vishal’s word). They felt cheated without closure, without even understanding what they did wrong. To this Vishal owes a big apology maybe individually now that he is on time off.
4. Is this bad leadership: The question I ask several of my friends in leadership positions – When do you stop accepting bad behaviour from top performers? Where do you draw the line? I have spent 15 years in this leadership development space and it still feels like a mystery yet to be solved. What defines a good leader? We can say culture wins to eternity but we always back talent and performance. We put too much expectation on our leaders and we hero worship. Does that make them arrogant or may be insecure? Why can’t companies have business leaders partner with people leaders to drive towards a unified goal? That is a tough model to think of and much tougher to implement. Any leader needs to own his/her decision unconditionally. Vishal’s apology seemed insincere in the way it came – he apologised for the communication channel “but” stood by his decision. He missed mentioning that his decision to communicate the way he did was indeed a very bad decision. Clearly a leader who justifies words and actions by saying that he did not intend it to be this way. Intentions are communicated with words and actions until we all become mind readers to know the right “intent”.
5. What to communicate: Communicate to people individually. That’s the reason there is a team representing the company. The CEO or Founder may live under the impression that he or she is the company but the truth is that they moment you have a large team, it is a company. There are leaders who decided in the best interest of the company and there is a team that communicates that decision. It is a role you play. Decision makers surely have a huge responsibility and if Vishal wanted to take full responsibility, he could have done it in different manner. Clearly he could not have spoken to all 900 individually and done justice to the conversation. He could have given a written note and company “representative” communicating with the individual could have shared it. Well he could have spoken to 900 employees individually after someone individually spoke with them or if he really felt the way he did, he should have spoken to them individually to fire them. It would have taken him a week to do so but if it mattered then he should have.
6. Timing: We do not know internal company situation that drove the timing of this decision. Was this an ask of the investors? Was the company low of cash? From the news, it seems like the money wasn’t the issue. Even if there was money, paying 900 employee for 3-4 additional weeks can pinch. A people oriented company would have delayed this communication. However, there is a possibility, the company did some math which made them choose the timing that they did. While there is some benefit of doubt on this, it is still hazy whether the timing could have been reworked.
There are other voices that say that layoff itself was a bad decision. If the company has money then why do they need to layoff. Companies layoff for multiple reasons. Performance is a big reason. Sometimes, strategy changes and an entire unit is not needed. Sometimes, investment needs to be redirected to other pressing needs. Firing 900 employees together is still not understood. If it is performance then how did it go unnoticed for such a long time. If it is shifting priorities then why was it not communicated appropriately. Overall, the intent is just as unclear as the shoddy way this was communicated. There is no good way to layoff but there are several bad ones. This is a learning in what not to do.
