In January 2026, Amazon announced another large round of layoffs, cutting roughly 16,000 corporate roles worldwide. This followed earlier reductions in late 2025, bringing the total number of eliminated corporate positions to around 30,000 within a matter of months. The announcement arrived even as the company reported healthy financial performance and doubled down on investments in artificial intelligence and automation. For employees, however, the macroeconomic rationale mattered far less than the way the decision landed: abruptly, impersonally, and with little warning. Some learned of their fate through a misdirected internal communication before any official explanation reached them. In an organisation famed for operational excellence, the moment exposed something deeper than a communication failure. It revealed how little preparation many companies believe they owe the people whose lives are most affected by these decisions.
Amazon’s case was dramatic, but it was not exceptional. Over the last 12 to 18 months, layoffs of similar character have unfolded across industries and geographies, from Silicon Valley to Singapore, from European industrial firms to fast-scaling startups in Southeast Asia. What stands out is not merely the scale of these workforce reductions, but their suddenness. Employees often discover that their role no longer exists with no meaningful advance notice, no transitional runway, and no opportunity to prepare themselves — financially, psychologically, or professionally — for what comes next. In a global economy that prides itself on foresight, planning, and optimisation, this reliance on shock remains striking.
The story usually begins with the same explanation. During the pandemic and the years immediately after, companies hired aggressively. Cheap capital, abundant liquidity, and soaring demand encouraged expansion. Headcount grew faster than revenues in many sectors, especially technology and fintech. When interest rates rose, markets tightened, and investor sentiment shifted, those same companies moved swiftly to correct what they now described as overreach. Layoffs were framed as rational adjustments, necessary to restore efficiency and discipline. Yet the correction has dragged on far longer than a single cycle, and its human costs have accumulated quietly. By 2025 alone, global tech layoffs crossed well into six figures. Established firms reduced staff alongside mid-sized companies and once-celebrated startups. What had initially been described as a temporary reset began to resemble a structural feature of modern corporate management.
What makes these episodes especially corrosive is the way they are executed. Layoffs are increasingly treated as events that must be contained, controlled, and completed with speed. Employees are told — often by email or in brief meetings — that the decision is final and immediate. Access is revoked within hours. Explanations follow a familiar script about strategic focus, organisational streamlining, or preparing for the future. Rarely do these messages acknowledge the asymmetry of the situation: the company has had weeks or months to deliberate, while the employee has had minutes to absorb the consequences. The logic is always the same. Advance notice creates uncertainty. It risks leaks. It might affect productivity. It could unsettle investors. These concerns are not imaginary, but they reveal a clear hierarchy of priorities. Market stability and managerial convenience are protected; employee dignity is treated as negotiable.
This pattern is not confined to the United States. Last year, a well-known fintech firm with a regional footprint abruptly retrenched a group of employees one morning without prior indication that such a move was imminent. Some of those affected had relocated countries for the role. Others were on employment passes with limited time to secure new work before facing visa consequences. There had been no prior communication about financial distress or restructuring at that scale. Internally, the company continued to speak the language of growth and long-term ambition right up until the moment those roles disappeared. The message, implicit but unmistakable, was that investor confidence and balance-sheet optics took precedence over any sense of obligation to the workforce that had helped build the business.
What makes this particularly unsettling is the contrast between how companies talk about employees when times are good and how they treat them when priorities shift. Over the last decade, corporate language has become increasingly intimate. Employees are urged to bring their whole selves to work. Organisations speak of purpose, belonging, and shared journeys. Leaders refer to teams as families, communities, or missions. This rhetoric is not accidental; it serves a function. It encourages loyalty, emotional investment, and discretionary effort. People work longer hours, tolerate ambiguity, and accept personal sacrifice in exchange for the promise of inclusion and meaning. Yet when layoffs arrive, that language evaporates. The relationship is suddenly framed as purely transactional. The same organisation that invoked togetherness now insists the decision is not personal. The emotional contract is quietly revoked.
This is not simply a matter of hurt feelings. The consequences are tangible and long-lasting. Sudden job loss is one of the most destabilising events in adult life. It disrupts income, identity, and routine all at once. For people with mortgages, dependents, or health obligations, the stress compounds quickly. For migrant workers, the stakes are even higher; unemployment can trigger forced relocation and family upheaval within weeks. When layoffs happen without warning, they deny people the chance to plan, to activate networks, or to transition with some measure of control. Over time, these experiences shape behaviour. Employees become more guarded, more transactional, less willing to trust assurances from leadership. Engagement becomes performative. Loyalty is replaced by contingency planning.
At a systemic level, this erosion of trust weakens organisations themselves. Companies that repeatedly rely on surprise layoffs teach their workforce an important lesson: that transparency is conditional and security illusory. Innovation suffers in such environments, not because people lack talent, but because they lack psychological safety. When individuals believe they can be discarded without warning, they optimise for self-preservation rather than long-term contribution. This is rarely reflected in quarterly results, but it shows up over time in higher attrition, reduced collaboration, and a pervasive sense of cynicism that no culture initiative can fully undo.
Underlying all of this is a broader tension within modern capitalism. Labour is increasingly treated as a variable cost, adjusted quickly in response to market signals, while the risks of that adjustment are borne almost entirely by workers. Investors expect agility, margin protection, and discipline. Boards and executives are incentivised to demonstrate decisiveness. In this context, layoffs become a tool not of last resort but of routine management. Even profitable companies resort to them to signal seriousness to the market. The human cost is acknowledged in passing, then abstracted away. Severance packages are presented as sufficient compensation for disruption, as if a few months of pay can replace stability, identity, or time.
Yet this is not inevitable. Companies do have choices. A more humane approach to workforce management does not require abandoning efficiency or ignoring investor realities. It requires foresight and restraint. Organisations can plan headcount more conservatively during boom periods rather than hiring at unsustainable rates. They can communicate honestly about financial pressures early, rather than maintaining an illusion of stability until the last possible moment. When layoffs are unavoidable, they can provide meaningful notice periods measured in months, not days, allowing people to search for roles while still employed. They can invest seriously in internal redeployment, reskilling, and transition support rather than treating these as symbolic gestures. They can align executive compensation with workforce outcomes, signalling that difficult decisions are shared rather than asymmetrically imposed.
Most importantly, companies can practice language discipline. If the relationship with employees is fundamentally transactional, it should be described as such. If, on the other hand, organisations wish to invoke ideas of community and shared purpose, they must accept the obligations that come with those claims. One cannot oscillate between “we are a family” and “this is just business” without consequences. Trust does not survive that kind of whiplash.
In 2026, workers are no longer surprised that layoffs happen. What unsettles them is how they happen. They are watching closely to see whether companies will continue to rely on shock and silence, or whether they will evolve toward models of workforce management that recognise employees as stakeholders with lives, not just resources on a spreadsheet. The answer to that question will shape not only individual careers, but the character of work itself in the years ahead.
Surprise, after all, is best reserved for moments of joy. When it comes to livelihoods, dignity demands something better.
Leave a Reply