A downsizing or reorganization is a significant business and organizational intervention. It places a burden on those who leave, those who stay, and the leaders alike, but the effects reach far beyond the immediate participants. Such a decision impacts employees' families, the company's partners, the quality of customer relationships, and the organization's reputation as well. This is why it is crucial that leadership does not view it merely as an administrative task, but as a complex organizational change that will shape the company's culture, effectiveness, and market position in the long term.
The situation is emotionally, mentally, and physically challenging for everyone involved. That is why the way an organization carries out the change is of critical importance. A poorly managed process can have a destructive impact for years, while a value-driven and people-centered approach can strengthen the organization in the long run and enhance its credibility.
A leadership theory -I also believe in - is increasingly gaining ground in practice: the organization is not a machine but a living organism.
It is a system in which every part affects the other, just like in the human body. When a change occurs – for example, in the case of downsizing or reorganization – its ripples run through the entire organization. They affect those who leave, those who stay, the leaders, the clients, and ultimately can influence the organization's future success as well.
A downsizing or reorganization is never just an administrative task, but a sensitive intervention into the entire organization, the way of which will, in the long run, determine the health of the organizational culture and potentially the future of the organization itself.
If the change is carefully planned and carried out in a values-driven, people-centered way, the organism is capable of regenerating – and perhaps even growing stronger over time.
Making the decision (when it falls within their local authority), communicating it, and carrying the process through is the shared responsibility of the entire executive team.
👉 HR is not a singled-out owner or merely a supporting partner, but—like every other function—a strategic participant that acts within its own scope based on shared decisions.
There is no such thing as "this doesn't concern me." Every executive leader must take part in making and consistently representing the decision, and then in the execution as well. Each function will have its tasks and responsibilities according to its competencies. These must be allocated and agreed upon. But it is not HR's role to manage and coordinate the entire process. In a carefully planned change, every member of the executive team, along with their respective functions, plays an active part.
Every leader must take responsibility and their fair share in the process: making collective decisions, representing them consistently, communicating with employees, and handling situations as they arise.
When a change is decided at the global headquarter, local leadership sometimes tries to distance itself from the situation by communicating: "This came from above, we can't do anything, we're just executing." While this may make things easier for them in the short term, it causes serious damage in the long run: employees may feel their leaders are not standing up for them and are not by their side.
Local leadership always has room to maneuver in terms of HOW. Support programs, forms of communication, and human presence can all be shaped locally. The message ultimately reaches employees through their direct leaders.
What can be done well in this situation?
Honesty: it can be acknowledged that the decision was not made locally, but that local leadership still has room to decide how to implement it – and this can and should be communicated openly and transparently.
Accountability: the leader does not shift blame but takes responsibility for what they can influence: "As your leaders, we feel responsible for carrying out this process as humanely and fairly as possible."
Value-driven, people-centered implementation: the framework is set, but in how they support those who stay, organize handovers, or say goodbye to those leaving, local leaders have partial or even full decision-making power. And here, the company's core values always serve as a guiding compass.
Presence: despite the global decision, local leaders must remain consistently available and approachable, not shaking off the leadership tasks and responsibilities that come with implementation.
👉 This is the difference between a messenger and a leader: a messenger just delivers the message, while a leader takes responsibility for how people experience it.
👉 Even if there is no flexibility in the numbers, there is always flexibility in the how. A significant difference can already be made if local leaders take time for personal conversations, write recommendations for those leaving, or even provide individual support to those struggling to find their footing. These human gestures often matter more than large-scale systemic decisions, because they directly reinforce the experience of trust.
Corporate values show their true worth when they are upheld even in times of crisis, guiding every participant's decisions, communication, and behavior throughout the process.
A downsizing or reorganization is a critical moment for leadership to demonstrate that values are not just posters on the wall, slogans on corporate gifts, or phrases in company communication.
Whatever the 3–5 official company values may be, in a people-centered culture the following fundamental human values must be present during such an important process:
👉 In short: let us be honest, consistent, respectful, and continuously present—both in our communication and personally. This is what preserves trust and functionality in a difficult situation.
Middle managers, team leaders, and shift leaders play a crucial role. They are closest to the people and have decisive influence over whether the team falls apart or is strengthened during the change.
They have a major role in shaping the how: it is not enough to simply pass on messages—they must actively shape the process, take on tasks, and assume responsibility. They, too, cannot be "just messengers." Their presence and attitude most clearly show employees what it really means to put organizational values into practice in everyday life.
Key responsibilities:
Making difficult decisions when these fall to them—ensuring the principles are transparent, aligned with core values, and can be clearly communicated.
Whenever possible, they should be the ones to deliver the news first, personally, one-on-one, to the affected employee—even if they are "only executors" for some reason. Not HR, nor senior management, and not just in the form of an official document.
(For these personal conversations and for handling challenging leadership situations, they should receive jointly prepared scripts and support. There should be distinct communication scenarios for both departing and remaining employees, with unified messages.)
Possible tools:
Regular joint leadership meetings and information exchange – with space for leaders to process and express emotions, ask questions, receive adequate information, and get support in handling different situations and taking the right steps.
In addition to senior leadership support, provide professional emotional and mental support (e.g. coaching, psychologists, facilitated peer-support groups).
Clear communication of process steps, timelines, leadership tasks, and responsibilities.
Communication scripts, message templates, and support materials – e.g. Q&A guides.
Ensure leadership support is not limited to the day of the announcement but continues regularly throughout the process and even after its closure.
👉 It is important to keep in mind: leaders are human beings, too. They also need space to process, to vent, and to have forums where they can openly talk about their difficulties. A leadership support group, coaching, or joint reflection sessions can help a great deal in preventing them from burning out by the end of the process.
After a downsizing or reorganization, those who stay are often not in an easy position either. They also need attention.
They may experience:
Uncertainty ("Will I be next?")
Fear of overload ("All the work will fall on me for the same pay")
Guilt ("I stayed, but others had to leave")
That is why it is worth offering targeted support programs for those who remain:
Psychological and emotional support. Departures affect not only those leaving but also those staying, who go through very similar emotions from another perspective. Individual or group sessions with leaders, psychologists, or coaches in the first weeks can help them process the experience and prevent lasting anxiety.
A clear vision for the future. The most important thing is reducing uncertainty: employees need to know why the change happened, where the organization is headed, and what their role is in it. Strategic messages and goals must be clear.
Joint redesign of tasks and responsibilities. Leaders should not just redistribute the leavers' work but redesign roles together with the team, based on the organization's strategy and current situation. Involving employees in shaping the new setup gives them back some control and reduces uncertainty. Everyone should have a clear role and realistic expectations in the new situation, with transparent communication that roles may still evolve.
Training and preparation. If employees take on new tasks or must use new technologies, they need support. Leaders and HR should collaborate to provide training, internal knowledge sharing, and mentoring programs.
Mini successes and recognition. In times of uncertainty, positive feedback is especially important. Team leaders can do a lot by acknowledging and making small successes visible.
Closure and farewell. Don't sweep the absence of those leaving under the rug. It helps to provide space for dignified goodbyes, for sharing memories, and for closing a chapter together.
Maintaining a sense of security. Staying employees can only focus if they feel leadership is in control. Communication must be clear, consistent, unified, and regular, with openness to questions and accessible leaders.
Managing the mental load. Fear of overload can be reduced through conscious time and workload planning. Leaders, together with the executive team, should clarify and set realistic priorities.
👉 Supporting those who remain is not a luxury but an investment: if they lose trust or burn out, the organization loses exactly the people on whom its future depends.
A well-managed downsizing or reorganization does not have to be only about loss—it can also be a moment for building trust and culture:
Departing employees, when treated fairly and supported with genuine outplacement programs, receive value (support for a fresh start). They see the company's effort and are more likely to leave without bitterness or resentment—keeping the door open for a possible return in the future.
Staying employees feel that the company treats its people with humanity and fairness, which gives them a sense of security.
Whether it is downsizing or reorganization, the key is the same: to carry it out in a values-based, people-centered way, with shared leadership responsibility.
Downsizing and reorganization are not just about numbers. The way a company leads such a process reveals more about its culture and values than any slogan or poster on the wall.
The organization, as a living organism, is capable of renewal—if change is seen not as an administrative measure but as a process that affects people and also holds opportunities for growth.
The real question is not whether there will be changes or losses, but how we can carry them out in a way that strengthens the organization's culture and the trust in it over the long term—in the eyes of those who stay, those who leave, and those who are reassigned.
I work with leadership teams and organizations to build values-driven, people-centered ways of working, and to design and implement change. If downsizing or reorganization is on the agenda in your organization, and it matters to you that the process is carried out in a values-based, people-centered way that preserves trust, I can support you in this. If you'd like to talk about it, feel free to reach out.
According to McKinsey's 2025 article A New Operating Model for a New World, even high-performing companies experience an average 30% gap between the full potential of their strategy and the results they actually achieve. One of the main reasons, according to the research, is shortcomings in the operating model.
When strategy execution starts to stall, it is easy to turn to organizational structure. Because structure is visible, tangible, and relatively easy to change, it often appears to be the logical place to intervene.
