Before you announce layoffs, check that the decision itself is ready. Put the business case, the savings model, the alternatives you considered with their numbers, the selection criteria and the draft list of affected roles, the plan for the work those roles do today, and the board materials into one request. Then instruct Pingpong to test each part the way a careful director, a skeptical employee, and your HR lead would. Ask whether the savings are real after one-time costs, whether the alternatives were actually tried, whether the criteria were applied consistently, and what must be confirmed by HR and counsel before any date is set.
This page is for chief executives, chief financial officers, and people leaders deciding whether a workforce reduction is ready to approve. Once the decision is final, plan the day itself with war-game a layoff communications plan before the day is set. Executive starting points live under Pingpong for executives. Employment law, notice, consultation, immigration, and severance questions belong with HR and counsel.
Five readiness gates
- The case. What problem does the reduction solve, by how much, and why now?
- The alternatives. Which other savings were tried, with what result, and why they are not enough?
- The criteria. How were roles chosen, is the information behind each choice complete, and has HR reviewed the list for consistency and fairness?
- The company afterward. Who does the work these roles did, and which customer or board commitments depend on them?
- The gates. Which legal, HR, and board approvals are still open?
If any gate is not settled, the announcement is not ready, however good the messages are.
A worked example
This example is illustrative and does not describe a customer. A 260-person climate analytics company is considering cutting 35 roles to extend runway. The chief executive wants to announce within three weeks and take the plan to the board next week.
The chief financial officer pastes the board memo, the savings model, the affected role list with team, location, and the stated reason for each, the last performance review summary, the current year's board-approved roadmap, and the runway brief.
A useful pass starts with the case. The memo claims $6 million in annual savings, but eight of the 35 roles are open positions that were never filled, so the payroll saving from current employees is closer to $4.2 million. Severance, notice pay, and benefits continuation, roughly $900,000, are missing from the first-year figure.
On alternatives, the memo says other options were explored but gives no figures. The pass notes that a large annual cloud commitment comes up for renewal next quarter and that no renegotiation appears in the materials.
On criteria, the list cites performance and role criticality, but a third of the affected employees have no rating from the last cycle because reviews were skipped for their teams. The list is heavily weighted toward the data platform team, whose roadmap the board approved three months ago. Three affected employees hold work visas, and two enterprise contracts name specific data scientists on the list.
On the board side, the runway brief shows 19 months. The reduction adds about four. Directors will likely ask whether that changes fundraising timing, and the memo does not say.
The chief executive moves the board discussion back two weeks. The savings model is restated net of one-time costs. The finance team opens the cloud renegotiation. HR redefines the criteria with documented inputs for every role, and counsel reviews the revised list and the visa and contract questions. The data platform roadmap goes back to the board alongside the reduction, and the final list is 28 roles. Only then does the team start the communications plan.
A request you can copy
Below are our business case for a workforce reduction, the savings model, the alternatives we considered, the selection criteria and draft list of affected roles, our plan for the work those roles do, and our board materials. Test five gates: the case, the alternatives, the criteria, the company afterward, and open approvals. Recalculate savings net of one-time costs and unfilled roles. Flag any affected role with incomplete information, any conflict with commitments to customers or the board, and every question our board will ask. Do not give legal advice. Mark employment, notice, and immigration questions for HR and counsel.
How Pingpong runs the review
The web review app sends your request through several models in order. Each later model receives the original request and every earlier answer, with instructions to assess the work so far. Limit employee details to what the review needs, and check with HR before pasting personal information. For the steps inside the app, see running your first review.
What a model can't review
A model does not know the people on the list, the history behind each role, or the law in each location. It cannot tell you whether a reduction is the right choice. HR and counsel own the legal review, and leaders own the decision.
When the reduction goes to a board vote, see war-game a decision before the board meeting. More guides live under work decisions before you commit.