I've yet to see a layoff announcement without the comments being about how it was done wrong. No notice? How horrible, everyone is going to be anxious all the time, people were caught off guard, how do they know when their job is safe. Notice? How horrible, this has to be a power play. No direct responsibility? How horrible, someone should be blamed for this. Direct responsibility? How horrible, they don't really care about this and it doesn't affect them enough. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if the announcement to "The entire board committed seppuku after announcing the layoffs" to be met with comments of how horrible, don't they know how many more problems this chaos from lack of upper management will cause for the remaining workers?
The truth is the only acceptable way to perform a layoff is to not need to perform a layoff, be it more profit or not over expanding. Though as a warning, there will be upset if the company doesn't expand fast enough or doesn't invest the profit too. If reality hits it's a matter of avoiding ways of doing it which are worse not finding a way everyone is going to agree was a great way to get rid of a bunch of jobs.
I agree the only acceptable layoff is no layoff. I think it's justified to criticize a layoff, no matter how it is performed. And I agree that criticizing the mechanics of each layoff is misguided.
I think layoffs leave a bad taste in the mouth because they seem to suggest that some employees weren't necessary. If you aren't cutting programs or products, you are either saying some employees did nothing, or the remaining employees will shoulder more work for the same pay.
I wonder: if layoffs were accompanied by a list of programs/products that are being sunset, if it would be more palatable.
It's quite easy to be busy doing nothing that turns out to be worthwhile. Both down to an individual level (I'm very guilty over the years) or up to a division/project in a large corporation. In this frame it's not that the employees did nothing it's what the employees were hired to do gave no profit. Sometimes that's okay, it's close and it'll be worthwhile. Other times it's a moonshot bet in which case it lasts as long as the company can afford to make moonshots. In some cases it's not okay, the company expected the division to be profitable and it's costing the business. In none of these cases is it about some employees doing nothing or others taking more load. Those are both certainly options but to list them as the only options is to work backwards from your conclusion about layoffs not forwards from reasons they occur.
I won't disagree that my response reads with a bias. I'm an employee, not an employer, I can't deny that.
But you say "sometimes... It's close". I think you have to allow for the scenario where it's not close, and management mad a bad call, and need to suffer the consequences. But THEY don't suffer the consequences... And their subordinates do.
I do think there are definitely occasions it's beyond fair to blame management for a bad call and expect consequences. One of the most blatant cases for this being well deserved, IMO, is when management makes cuts and then expects to (or does) receive bonuses for hitting budget targets. You didn't hit budget targets, you bombed and cut back so it didn't look like you failed. Another is serial mismanagement where it's not just a mistake it's a regular failure to be able to manage successfully in a typical scenario.
However, just as it doesn't make sense when people call for blood/resignation/pay cut/etc of an engineer the instant they make a costly mistake (even though some poorly run places of course will), it's not a given that a mistake in management was made therefore we need the blood of some in management. The question on consequences, in both cases, is usually "would it be expected someone else in that role is doing significantly better at avoiding these problems" not "has this employee ever made a mistake".
