So far in 2026, over 50 biopharmas have cut or plan to cut their workforces. If they didn’t take a careful, thoughtful approach to telling people they were being laid off, they likely left a negative impression on employees, based on stories shared with BioSpace.
Whether layoffs are suspected, expected or a surprise, how biopharma companies deliver the news and handle the immediate aftermath matters a great deal, judging from stories BioSpace recently collected. Most comments so far to an ongoing survey have centered on the unfortunate ways employers told employees they were out of jobs.
These are some of their experiences.
The impersonal touch
One survey respondent a biotech recently laid off felt their package was fair but noted “the manner in which separation and departure was handled was cold, structured (read from a script) and made me feel as if my dedication to the company was one sided.” The company let them go on a Zoom call along with other lower-level staff from their department.
“My years of giving it my all, sacrificing for the success of the organization felt completely unappreciated,” the respondent wrote.
The awkward setting
For a former Charles River Laboratories employee, the news came when they were at an airport. They were called into a Teams meeting with their department director and a human resources representative and were not given an option to delay the conversation. The company let them go effective immediately. The now-former Charles River employee did not receive much of an explanation for what drove the decision.
“It was vague, I have spent a lot of time pondering what resulted in my layoff,” they wrote.
The inconvenient timing
Another former Charles River employee was let go during their final week of maternity leave. The day before they got official word, they received a meeting invitation from someone in human resources who attended the meeting with their manager.
“The company-wide layoffs had started almost a year prior and trickled their way down to my team,” they wrote, adding that the company eliminated everyone’s positions, except the manager’s. Human resources encouraged those who had lost their jobs to reapply for other roles on the team. None who did were hired back.
“Which begs the question - what is the overall goal/vision of the restructuring?” the respondent wrote.
The surprise (and insensitive) ask
For another respondent, the process began well enough. Their small biotech told them in person, chalking up the layoffs to consolidating funding so the company could focus on advancing a lead asset. They would stay on for one month of full-time work, then receive a two-month severance package.
However, they soon learned that the eliminated roles were being outsourced to a contract research organization (CRO). The respondent spent their final month of employment providing necessary documentation and tech transfer to the CRO.
“All things considered,” they wrote, “the company handled the breaking of the news and subsequent severance better than most places, but the lack of honesty about the CROs and the ‘training your replacement’ piece is the most upsetting part.”
The haphazard approach
The process at another company went far less smoothly. The employer’s approach to letting about 10% of the staff go one Friday morning was very disjointed, the respondent wrote.
“Some people were walked out in person. Other people received phone calls. I was speaking with my team about what was happening when my phone rang. Managers were not informed of what was happening.”
The company told employees the reason for the layoffs was financial, and the employee described the severance package as “subpar, especially considering the current climate.”
If you’d like to tell us about your recent layoff for possible inclusion in an article, please fill out our one-question survey. You can remain anonymous. We’re especially interested in hearing about workforce reductions that took place because of an acquisition.
