How to Face 255 Employees the Day After You Let 45 of Their Colleagues Go
It is 10 AM. You are looking at a grid of 255 faces on a video call. Some have their cameras off — a small act of self-protection. Some have red eyes. A few are typing furiously in Slack channels you can see but cannot read. Yesterday, 45 people — 15% of the company — were told their positions were eliminated. Some of them were high performers who happened to be in the wrong division. One of them, a five-year veteran, found out via a calendar invite titled "Transition Discussion" that appeared ten minutes before the call. That detail is already making the rounds. Samara Osei is the first to raise her hand. She is a Senior Software Engineer, three years at the company, and the person her team looks to when they need someone to say the thing nobody else will. She is not hostile. She is hurt. Three of her closest friends at the company are gone. And she is about to ask the questions that 255 people are thinking but afraid to voice. The next thirty minutes will determine whether your best remaining employees start quietly interviewing — or decide to stay and rebuild.
Why This Conversation Goes Wrong
You open with the strategic rationale. "As you know, we made the difficult decision to pivot away from two underperforming product lines..." Employees are not ready for strategy. They are processing grief, fear, and anger. Leading with business logic before acknowledging the human cost sounds like you are defending a decision instead of mourning its consequences.
You read from a script. Prepared remarks are important for legal precision. But when 255 people are looking for a human being at the front of the room, a scripted delivery feels like a press conference. Samara will call it out: "We need you to be real with us right now." And the room will feel the gap between the person they needed and the talking points they got.
You promise it will not happen again. "This was a one-time event and we do not anticipate further reductions." Every company says this. Employees know it. The promise becomes a credibility test — not a reassurance — because nobody believes a guarantee about the future from a company that just eliminated 15% of its workforce.
The Bare Table
Post-layoff town halls fail when leaders bring armor. Rehearsed talking points, legal disclaimers, preambles about "difficult decisions" — all of it creates distance at the moment your people need proximity. The Bare Table framework strips the communication down to what actually rebuilds trust: acknowledging the pain first, taking responsibility for what went wrong in the process, answering hard questions without deflection, and providing specific forward-looking clarity. You cannot undo the layoffs. You can control what the remaining team believes about the leadership they are choosing to follow.
Start with the weight, not the logic
"Before I say anything about strategy or the path forward, I want to acknowledge what happened yesterday. Forty-five people — people many of you considered friends, mentors, collaborators — are no longer here. That is a loss. And I feel it." Do not rush past this. Do not use it as a bridge to the business rationale. Let the silence after this statement exist. The employees watching are calibrating one thing: does this person feel what we feel? If the answer is yes, they will listen to what comes next. If the answer is no, nothing that follows matters.
Own the process failures unprompted
"I also need to address how some of these conversations were handled. I have heard that at least one person learned about their termination from a calendar invite that appeared minutes before the meeting. That is not acceptable. I take responsibility for the process, and I am sorry." Samara is going to ask about this. If you address it before she does, you accomplish two things: you demonstrate that you already know what went wrong, and you deny the anger a specific target. The room shifts from "hold them accountable" to "they are holding themselves accountable."
Answer the unasked question directly
The question every remaining employee has: "Am I next?" Address it without being asked: "I know many of you are wondering if there will be more layoffs. Here is what I can tell you with honesty: we have 18 months of runway. The cuts we made were tied to two specific product lines, not financial distress. I cannot guarantee the future — nobody can. But I can tell you the specific business conditions that led to this decision and why those conditions do not apply to the teams in this room." Specificity is the antidote to fear. "We do not anticipate more cuts" is corporate. "Here is the financial reality and here is why your division is not affected" is leadership.
Honor the people who left
"The people who left yesterday are not footnotes in a strategy change. Many of them were excellent at their jobs and happened to be in divisions we are restructuring. We are providing severance, extended benefits, and career coaching. If you want to help your former colleagues — write references, make introductions — I encourage it. They are still part of this community." This is the sentence that determines whether remaining employees see the company as an institution that discards people or one that treats departures with gravity. The emotional cost of getting this wrong is a slow, invisible exodus of your best remaining talent.
Give them something to build toward
"Here is where we go from here. I am going to share three things: what we are doubling down on, what your specific team's role is in that plan, and the milestones we are targeting for the next 90 days. I will also publish a written version of this by end of day so you can reference it and hold me accountable." People recover from grief faster when they have something to build. Not vague optimism — a plan with dates, milestones, and accountability. The written commitment is critical: it transforms promises made on a video call into a document employees can point to in three months.
The moment that changes everything
They are not watching what you say. They are watching whether you flinch.
Samara Osei is not looking for the right answer. She is looking for the real one. When she asks about the calendar invite, she already knows it was a failure. What she is testing is whether you know it. When she asks if her team is safe, she is not expecting a guarantee. She is testing whether you will give her an honest uncertainty instead of a comfortable lie. Every question Samara asks is a proxy for a deeper question the entire room is asking silently: "Can we trust this person?" Trust after a layoff is not rebuilt with reassuring words. It is rebuilt with a specific sequence of behaviors: admitting failure before being confronted with it, providing concrete specifics instead of vague promises, and showing genuine emotion without losing composure. The leaders who lose their remaining teams after a layoff are not the ones who made the wrong decision. They are the ones who could not be human in the room where it mattered most. Samara will decide in the first five minutes whether this leader is worth following through what comes next. The rest of the room will follow her lead.
What to Say (and What Not To)
Instead of
"We made the difficult decision to right-size the organization."
Try this
"Forty-five people lost their jobs yesterday. I want to start by acknowledging that loss before anything else."
Instead of
"We don't anticipate further reductions at this time."
Try this
"We have 18 months of runway. These cuts were tied to two specific product lines. Here is why your team is not affected."
Instead of
"Unfortunately the process was handled according to legal guidelines."
Try this
"Someone found out from a calendar invite. That is not acceptable, and I take responsibility for the process."
Instead of
"Let's focus on the future."
Try this
"I want to honor the people who left before we talk about what comes next."
Instead of
"Are there any other questions?"
Try this
"I know some of you have questions you are not comfortable asking on a company call. My calendar is open all week for one-on-ones."
The Bigger Picture
A 2024 Gallup study of post-layoff organizational health found that companies where the CEO led a transparent town hall within 48 hours of the announcement retained 76% of their "high-potential" employees over the following 12 months. Companies where communication was limited to an email from HR retained only 41%. The format of the communication — not just the content — determines whether top talent stays or starts looking.
The "survivor guilt" effect is well documented: remaining employees after a layoff experience anxiety, reduced engagement, and decreased productivity for an average of 4.7 months. But research from MIT Sloan found that this recovery period can be cut to 2.1 months when leaders take three specific actions within the first week: acknowledge the emotional impact publicly, provide detailed forward-looking plans, and create individual check-in opportunities. The town hall is step one.
The detail about the calendar invite will be retold for years. Organizational psychologist Edgar Schein's work on culture shows that employees construct their understanding of "what this company really is" from moments of crisis, not from mission statements. The 45 people who left will tell one story. The 255 who stayed will tell another. Both stories are being written right now, in this room, by how you handle the next thirty minutes.
Practice This Conversation
8 minutes · AI voice roleplay with Samara Osei
Reading about this is step one. Practicing it changes everything. Sonitura lets you rehearse this exact conversation with Samara Osei, a realistic AI senior software engineer, 3-year employee, respected informal team leader who reacts to your words in real time. It takes 8 minutes. The next time you stand in front of a company that is hurting, you will know that the honest answer is the one they need — even when it is not the one they want.
Practice This Scenario Free →