NEW YORK, Aug 30 — After massive hiring during the Covid-19 pandemic, several American companies have announced the elimination of hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs. Others are restructuring, leading some employees to be reassigned internally. This strategy is sometimes described as "quiet cutting” by those concerned.

We’ve already seen "quiet quitting” and "quiet firing,” now the work world is also talking about "quiet cutting,” This expression, recently coined by the Wall Street Journal, refers to what is essentially downsizing but which isn’t labelled as such. The idea is for managers or the HR department to offer a different position to an employee in a context of mass departures with the secret hope that this new assignment will provide new impetus for the employee to excel... or, on the contrary, to leave the company. In the latter case, "quiet cutting” spares the employer the need to initiate yet another dismissal procedure.

In recent months, a number of US firms, including Adidas, Adobe, IBM and Salesforce, have reorganised their payrolls instead of laying off large numbers of staff, according to the Wall Street Journal. And they’re not the only ones opting for this strategy: US employers announced 23,697 job cuts in July, down 42 per cent on the previous month, according to consulting firm Challenger, Gray and Christmas Inc.

But such restructuring is not always welcomed by the "remaining” employees, who fear that it will prompt a deterioration in their working conditions. Others fear being locked into a job they didn’t choose and for which they’re not suited, or are anxious about being seen as ungrateful if they turn down the opportunity. "I got the sense that it was like: ‘We appreciate everything you did so we didn’t lay you off, so you can either make the best of this or go find another job somewhere else’,” Matt Conrad, an American employee who has experienced two reassignments in two years, told the Wall Street Journal.

Watch out for survivor syndrome

While the impact of restructuring on those made redundant is obvious, less attention is given to the effects on employees who remain with the reconfigured company. Yet they are just as real. Demotivation, stress, professional disengagement and feelings of guilt are all symptoms of what is known as "survivor syndrome.” The term was coined in the 1960s to describe the emotional state of World War II survivors. However, it is increasingly used to describe the malaise experienced by employees who have escaped a wave of redundancies — relatively, of course. Those who suffer from workplace survivor syndrome may feel overwhelmed by negative feelings, despite having "survived” a redundancy plan, which has an impact on their productivity — even though the aim of restructuring is to make a company more competitive.

These are some of the complexities involved in restructuring: the process involves making a radical change in the working environment, which can profoundly destabilise the remaining employees. Add to this the fear that this strategy is, in reality, an insidious form of "quiet cutting,” and you end up with a reduced and demoralised workforce. But it’s important to bear in mind that not every reclassification masks an employer’s desire to force employees to resign. Reassignment can be an opportunity to acquire very useful skills if you decide to go for a position that you truly want, and not one that has been imposed on you. Whether in the new, reorganised company or elsewhere. — ETX Studio