Managing Redundancies

There are leadership decisions that drain you because they are complex. There are spreadsheets, scenarios, and timelines to manage.

And then there are decisions that drain you because they are human.

Redundancies sit firmly in the second category.

For leaders, redundancy decisions create a particular kind of stress. Not the fast‑paced pressure of delivery, but a burden that lingers long after the formal process has ended.

Leaders are required to act decisively while knowing that whatever they decide, someone’s life will be changed.

This article explores why redundancies are uniquely stressful for leaders, why they are sometimes a necessary evil, and how leaders can approach them in ways that are both commercially responsible and human.

Why redundancies feel different

Senior leaders are usually promoted because they can solve problems, create growth, and protect the organisation.

Redundancies invert this for many leaders.

Instead of building opportunity, leaders are removing it. Instead of developing people, they are ending employment relationships.

Research consistently shows that decisions involving direct harm to others place a higher cognitive and emotional load on decision‑makers than purely technical choices.

According to the Office for National Statistics, around 150,000 people were made redundant in the UK during 2024, with redundancy rates rising again through late 2024 and into 2025 as economic uncertainty continued.

That means tens of thousands of leaders were directly involved in decisions affecting people’s livelihoods.

The stress for leaders does not usually come from whether the numbers add up. It comes from the knowledge that they are going to have to take responsibility to share that news with people they often really like and value.

Moral stress and leadership

This form of stress is often described as moral stress.

It occurs when leaders are required to act in ways that conflict with their values, even when the action is necessary.

Unlike time pressure or workload stress, moral stress does not dissolve once the task is complete.

Leaders commonly report replaying redundancy conversations, questioning whether they could have acted earlier, or wondering if they missed alternative options.

Importantly, this stress is often invisible inside organisations. Leaders are expected to “handle it” quietly. Many do, at the cost of energy, sleep, and emotional capacity.

Redundancies are necessary

Most people I know have experience one, two or three redundancies over their career, and the trend doesn't seem to be stopping.

Redundancies tend to be driven by external conditions: market downturns, the loss of significant contracts, funding changes, regulatory shifts, or broader economic instability or poor internal decision making that has led the company profits to dip. 

In project‑based and SME environments, leaders often face binary choices: reduce headcount or risk the survival of the entire organisation.

Avoiding redundancy decisions can sometimes create greater harm later. Delayed action can lead to organisational collapse, sudden closures, or significantly larger job losses. In this sense, redundancies can become a necessary evil rather than a leadership failure.

The leadership challenge is not about eliminating risk or pain entirely. It is about ensuring that decisions are made deliberately, communicated honestly, and carried with integrity.

Where leaders often struggle

Most leaders do not approach redundancies carelessly. However, under stress, several patterns commonly appear.

One is hiding behind process. Legal frameworks and HR guidance are essential, but when leaders rely on them exclusively, people feel unseen. Process should protect fairness, not replace humanity.

Another is rushing conversations. Under emotional pressure, some leaders try to move quickly to reduce their own discomfort. This often leaves people with unanswered questions and a sense of being processed rather than respected.

Leaders also tend to over‑justify decisions. Continuous explanation is frequently driven by the leader’s need to be understood, rather than the individual’s need to be supported.

Finally, many leaders isolate themselves. They carry the decision alone, believing that stress is simply “part of the job.”

Over time, this isolation compounds emotional fatigue.

For leaders handling redundancies, important decisions are often made while simultaneously managing hundreds of emails, urgent messages, and competing demands. The result is reduced mental space to process emotional complexity.

Principles for handling redundancies well

There is no perfect way to carry out redundancies. But there are clear principles that consistently reduce harm.

Be honest earlier than feels comfortable

Shock increases distress. While leaders cannot always share full details early, acknowledging uncertainty and naming pressure helps people contextualise risk. People cope better when outcomes are not experienced as sudden or arbitrary.

Separate worth from role

Redundancy is often internalised as personal failure. Leaders must clearly state that roles, structures, or funding have changed not individual value. This should be explicit, not implied.

Stay present

Presence matters more than eloquence. Leaders who allow emotion, listen without correcting, and resist the urge to close conversations quickly create dignity even in difficult moments.

Treat aftercare as leadership work.

Redundancy does not end when the meeting ends. Clear timelines, practical support, references, and follow‑up communication signal respect. The way people leave the organisation sends a strong message to those who remain.

Acknowledge personal impact

Leaders are affected too. Suppressing emotional impact leads to numbness, cynicism, or burnout. Structured reflection, coaching, or peer support allows leaders to carry responsibility without being consumed by it.

Supporting those who stay

Redundancies do not only affect those who leave. Remaining team members often experience survivor guilt, anxiety, and fear of future cuts. Silence after redundancies is frequently interpreted as instability.

Leaders need to address what has happened directly, clarify what is known and unknown, and rebuild trust deliberately. Psychological safety does not recover automatically; it requires attention.

What people remember years later

When individuals look back on redundancy experiences, they rarely remember financial explanations in detail. They remember how they were spoken to, whether leaders stayed human, and whether dignity was preserved.

Leadership is not judged solely on outcomes, but on conduct under pressure.

If redundancy decisions have weighed heavily on you as a leader, that does not mean you lack resilience or competence. It means you understand responsibility.

Leadership is not defined by easy success. It is defined by the ability to make hard decisions and carry them without losing integrity.

Redundancies will never be painless. But handled well, they do not have to destroy trust, culture, or the leader making them.

This is the part of leadership we prepare for least.

And it is the part leaders need support with most.



Barbra Carlisle works with senior leaders and founders in construction, engineering, and professional services, supporting them through high‑stakes decisions, leadership pressure, and accountability at the