I’m wondering why the org doesn’t offer voluntary severance. Bit less pain getting to the 12%. They’d probably get a lot of takers.
What’s the downside? Cost? They’re giving severance to people being laid off, what’s a few more? Extra cost could be people who were going to leave/retire anyway, now you have to pay them severance. Maybe you might lose a superstar but that type of person isn’t staying for a possible severance.
I suspect there are people they want to keep who would definitely want to leave. In any department, some people just do more than others.
Problem is, the people in charge think every employee is easily replaced, which is wrong. Some employees are leaving that have great skills and knowledge, and in many cases, knowledge that is not documented.
The loss of control of the process is a good explanation. But the alternative they’re pursuing isn’t very well thought out. My own department wasn’t thinned out enough. While at the same time key employees who were the only ones who knew the proprietary systems we use were let go. Incompetent directors and their lackeys are being promoted.
@WwmaWJz - you ask a really great question because some firms do offer voluntary severance packages while others do not (I'm looking at this from a US perspective - different countries would have different issues). One reason would be to control the total number of reductions for a given job category. Anyone who they didn't want to lose would also have a chance to negotiate a new compensation package, or some retention bonus that would increase costs.
A lot of people in their late 60s would gladly take it.