How redundancy communications affect employee trust and re-employment

No one wants to be the one delivering difficult news, but getting redundancy communications right is essential for showing respect to departing employees and preserving your organisation’s reputation. When a downsizing is communicated in a fashion that reflects the organisation’s culture, employees feel well respected and informed, even in a high-stakes situation. On the other hand, poor communication can quickly undermine even the strongest company culture.

Careerminds’ Redundancy Communications Report surveyed over 1,000 full-time workers who had either experienced a team redundancy or had been made redundant themselves in the last twelve months. The findings reveal that the way restructures are communicated can drive turnover among remaining employees and influence how quickly departing employees secure new roles. 

When redundancies happen, timing and transparency aren’t just matters of etiquette; they’re matters of law. In the UK, employers planning 20 or more redundancies at a single establishment within a 90-day period are legally required to carry out collective consultation with employee representatives to notify the Redundancy Payments Service (RPS). These rules exist to give workers time to prepare and explore alternative opportunities, yet even where companies comply, how employees first hear about redundancies can vary widely, and it shapes how workers feel about their employer.

Among employees who were made redundant, one in four (27%) said they first heard the news directly from their manager or HR, while one in five (21%) only found out once redundancies had already begun. However, the most common way employees learned about potential cuts was through informal conversations, rumors, or workplace gossip, as reported by 34% of respondents.  

For employees who remained with the company, the story looks familiar, with the rumour mill once again breaking the news before management or HR had the chance. Over a third (35%) first learned about redundancies through internal gossip, while a quarter heard from a manager, HR, or a company-wide announcement.  

The when of a communication matters just as much as the what: 

• 43% of employees who were made redundant and 44% of those who witnessed redundancies first heard about potential job cuts before any action was taken.
  
• About a quarter of impacted employees (25%) and 30% of witnesses learned about the redundancies after decisions had been made but before employees were let go.
  
• Roughly 27% of affected employees and 24% of witnesses only found out once the redundancies had already begun.

Taken together, these findings pose a challenge to HR leaders: the rumour mill often spreads faster than official channels. While HR and management prioritise informing those directly impacted, the broader workforce frequently relies on whispers and speculation, creating uncertainty even when companies meet their legal obligations. Clear and timely communication matters for everyone, not just departing employees.

Raymond Lee, President of Careerminds, comments on the findings, “Senior stakeholders should always know that the way the message is shared is often just as important as the message itself, especially during the time of significant change, like a redundancy, when a company’s commitment to culture via comms will be put to the test.”

When redundancies happen, employees look to leadership for explanation. Regardless of the motivation for a restructure, the Redundancy Communication Report finds that HRs tend to approach communications with an empathy-first mindset.  In many cases, employees do recognise these efforts: a majority described redundancy communications as empathetic and considerate, reflecting an understanding of the personal impact such news can have. 

When asked about the tone of the communications they received:

• The majority of departing (38%) and remaining (44%) employees felt official communications they received from HR were very empathetic and considerate.
  
• 32% of remaining workers and 31% of departing employees felt official communications held a neutral tone. 
  
• Almost 1 in 3 (30%) of redundant employees and 25% of remaining employees felt official communications were somewhat cold and impersonal.
  

When it comes to transparency about why redundancies were happening, only 28% of employees who were made redundant felt that leadership was very transparent and explained the business context, selection criteria, and any plans to prevent similar situations. Nearly half (49%) described communication as somewhat transparent, sharing some information but leaving key details vague or incomplete, and 23% felt the messaging was not transparent at all. 

Most workers said the consistency of communications varied among senior stakeholders, when best practice is to have a unified message across teams and channels: 

• 29% of employees who were made redundant and 26% of witnesses said messages were very consistent across all sources.
  
• 41% of departing employees and 48% of remaining workers said messages were somewhat consistent, with only minor differences. 
  
• Around 22% of both groups reported inconsistent messages from different sources, and 8% of departing employees and 4% of witnesses said communications sometimes directly contradicted each other.

While empathy is readily apparent in the tone and delivery of communications,  a lack of transparency can leave workers feeling respected yet still left with unanswered questions, which can influence trust in leadership long after the redundancy process is complete.

A company culture disrupted by communications that didn’t meet employee expectations can drastically reduce engagement and confidence in leadership. Our survey data highlights this clearly:

When we asked workers who had highlighted poor communication during redundancies:

• 53% of remaining workers and 59% of departing employees said their trust in the firm had decreased.
  
• 44% of remaining workers and 34% of departing employees said their trust in leadership hadn’t been impacted. 
  
• Just 8% of remaining workers and 7% of employees made redundant said their trust in leadership had improved.

This erosion of trust not only impacts team morale but can also extend outward to the company’s reputation with customers and clients. Across all employees surveyed, 30% reported that trust among clients and service users would decrease, and 16% said it had strongly decreased. 

Among those who were made redundant, nearly 58% said they were now less likely to recommend their company as a place to work, with 31% feeling much less likely. Similarly, employees who witnessed redundancies were also affected: around 47% reported being less likely to recommend their company to a job-seeking friend, including 17% who said they were much less likely.

Even when employees aren’t directly impacted by redundancies, the way those redundancies are communicated can influence engagement and retention. According to HBR, downsizing just 1% can lead to a 31% increase in voluntary employee turnover in the following year. While some level of turnover is natural following a restructure, poor communication can exacerbate the effect by creating uncertainty, frustration, or a sense that leadership isn’t transparent. 

Employees who witnessed redundancies said: 

• 50% said poor redundancy communications pushed them to consider leaving their role. 
  
• 44% said the communications they had received had no impact on them wanting to leave or stay.
  
• Just 6% noted that the communications had made them less likely to look for another role.

Employees who feel their communications were fair and transparent are more likely to understand the reasoning behind a restructure, feel supported, and make use of resources provided by their employer. Conversely, those who receive poor communication may feel frustrated and disengaged, which can slow down their job search.

• Employees who received communications they perceived to be ‘fair’ were more likely to secure a new role quickly: 39% did so within one month, and 25% within one to three months. Fewer than 16% took more than six months to find new employment.
  
• Employees who saw communications as unfair took longer on average: role: only 22% found work within a month, while 35% took one to three months, and more than 22% were still searching after six months.

Our findings make one thing clear: how redundancies are communicated matters just as much as the redundancies themselves. Employees who feel informed and respected are not only more likely to trust leadership and remain engaged, but also more likely to find new employment quickly. On the other hand, unclear or inconsistent communication amplifies uncertainty, reduces advocacy, and leads to higher turnover. 

As organisations navigate changes in their workforce, having a clear plan can make all the difference.

1. Equip notification givers with a redundancy script 

A redundancy script can provide clarity on how to best approach each notification conversation and ensure a standardised approach across the organisation. These conversations should happen before any other wider announcements are made to minimise the risk of misinformation spreading.

2. Align your HR team with comprehensive answers 

Your HR team needs to be fully prepared for questions that arise during a redundancy process. They should be equipped to answer queries about statutory or enhanced redundancy pay, pension arrangements, and any remaining company benefits, such as outplacement. 

3. Keep remaining employees in the loop

Once notifications are complete, communicate clearly with the wider firm. Explain the changes, how they affect ongoing work, and reaffirm the company’s direction to maintain trust and morale. 

4. Provide a standardised offboarding package 

Give every employee being made redundant clear documentation outlining their statutory redundancy pay entitlement, any enhanced redundancy pay, remaining benefits, and available support — including outplacement services to help them secure their next role. 

This report is based on a survey conducted by Careerminds in October 2025, gathering insights from 1,000 full-time workers who had witnessed redundancies on their team or had been made redundant in the last year. Further analysis has been conducted to identify correlations between those who rated redundancy communications as fair and how quickly they achieved reemployment.