Meta's 'non-regrettable attrition' and the other corporate lingo used to downplay job cuts

Core Insights - Companies often use euphemistic language to describe job cuts, such as "reduction in force" or "non-regrettable attrition," to avoid alarming investors and employees [2][3][10] - Despite the use of softer terms, the impact on affected workers remains significant, and such language does not mitigate the emotional toll of layoffs [6][13] Group 1: Company Practices - Meta announced it would cut an additional 5% of "low-performers," referring to this as "non-regrettable attrition," which has drawn criticism for its euphemistic nature [2][8] - Amazon employs the term "unregretted attrition" for similar job cuts, reflecting a trend among companies to avoid the term "layoff" [2][5] - Bumble plans to cut about 30% of its workforce in 2024 to align its operating model with future strategic priorities [5] Group 2: Expert Opinions - Experts argue that the euphemistic language used by companies often fails to soften the blow for employees and can lead to decreased morale and productivity [6][10][13] - Steve McClatchy noted that such language attempts to reassure investors but often backfires, as it does not address the underlying issues of poor hiring and management [3][9] - Sandra Sucher highlighted that terms like "non-regrettable attrition" are designed to sugarcoat layoffs, implying that employers have control over workforce changes when they often do not [11][12] Group 3: Social Reactions - The use of euphemisms has led to public mockery on social media, with users expressing cynicism about terms like "non-regrettable attrition" [2][16] - The phrase "rank and yank" is used in HR contexts to describe the practice of scoring and removing the worst performers, which can also contribute to a negative perception among employees [16]