Taylor Clarke Blog

Hard times and who’s heard: Managing Survivor Syndrome by Robin Tait, Principal Consultant

June 10th, 2010

With many organisations in the UK still suffering from hard economic times and redundancies continuing to affect people, it can be hard to devote time to thinking about and listening to, those employees who survive the cutbacks and downsizing. It can be tempting to assume that the employees who remain in the organisation are fine, after all they still have a job, they are the lucky ones, aren’t they? Well that depends on whose perspective you see it from and the individual circumstances they face.

‘Survivor Syndrome’ is a phrase which has long been used to describe the set of shared reactions and behaviours of people who have survived an adverse event. It is now increasingly being used to describe the impact on the emotions and behaviours of employees who remain in organisations where large-scale redundancies have recently occurred.

The traditional symptoms of the syndrome are generally agreed on. They include:-
• lower motivation and morale
• reduced loyalty to the organisation
• higher stress levels,
• lower trust
• increased scepticism about the organisation
• feelings of guilt at surviving the cutbacks
• jealousy of those who left, perhaps with a substantial redundancy package.

It is the effect of these emotions and feelings among remaining employees that organisations rightly fear: they include lower productivity levels, increased absence levels and higher labour turnover. Redundancy programmes are often a response to reduced demand, a need to reduce costs or increase efficiency to get through a period of crisis. Given these goals, the impact of a severe case of survivor syndrome amongst a reduced workforce seeking to cope with an increased workload can be very damaging.

Our own experience of working with organisations that have had to make major redundancies has highlighted some of the issues that impact the severity of the syndrome. These include

• the perceived fairness of the redundancy selection procedure
• how the organisation treats the employees it is making redundant
• the amount, nature and openness of communication during the redundancy process
• actions managers take to help people do more with less after the redundancies have happened.

Looking first at the selection procedure, if it is shrouded in mystery and/or ambiguity, fear and anxiety tend to become the dominant emotions of all employees, including those whose services the organisation is desperate to retain. Where the selection procedure is transparent and, if appropriate, agreed with the trade union or staff representatives, remaining employees are much more likely to accept redundancies as a difficult but necessary measure. They can see it helping to solve the current crisis and safeguard the organisation’s future.

Remember that during redundancies, loyalty to the organisation seems to decrease and loyalty to work teams and colleagues seems to increase. Depending on the nature of the crisis facing organisations they can, sometimes, choose to adopt best practice in terms of redundancy pay-outs and out-placement services. However whatever constraints are present, when redundancies are handled sensitively and professionally, organisations are less likely to lose the respect and crucial discretionary effort of employees who remain. 

The way managers break the news to redundant employees is a key part of this issue. Handling redundancies is one of the most difficult of management tasks, fraught with emotion and tension. This task is often done poorly, sometimes appallingly, because managers have little or no practice.   Where this happens those who remain will often empathise, and side, with their colleagues, the ‘victims’. In the process their opinion of their employer is likely to suffer further damage. Managers themselves can be scarred by the process and it is important for managers to be trained in, and supported through, this difficult task.

Communication is also a key issue.  Employees will probably be receptive to the news that the leaner, meaner ship that will emerge from the redundancy programme is more likely to stay afloat. However these kinds of messages alone are not enough. Individual employees are keen to hear about and discuss their berth, will there be one, what will it look like and will it meet their needs? Employees will be hungry for information and managers simply explaining that there is no news at the moment because…can be a vital part of allaying anxiety and stopping rumour and discontent, precursors of the full blown syndrome, getting out of hand.

Lastly, when the dust has settled managers will often be faced with producing the same amount of work or be expected to deliver the same quality of service with fewer, and sometimes, less experienced people. Paradoxically there are factors that may make this daunting task easier. Whereas a number of experienced people may have left the organisation their departure can free up communication pathways and can offer a chance to re-build relationships with key stakeholders. These may have not been working optimally due to personality clashes or well established, but inefficient ways of working. Much lower staff numbers can force staff to re-imagine how tasks could be completed and some staff members will relish the freedom to do this. Some managers are reluctant to delegate and act as bottlenecks but higher workloads may lead to them having to delegate more. It is our experience that some staff, who were under-utilised or under-valued, will accept the chance to rise to this challenge and deliver innovation and quality as well as being more satisfied at work.

So if your organisation is about to go through large-scale redundancies will it suffer from survivor syndrome? The answer is almost certainly, yes! However the negative effects can be greatly reduced by taking some of the actions outlined above.