It's not like there aren't disgruntled employees before layoffs. If a single employee could cause billions of dollars in losses, then the company already has a big problem regardless of layoffs.

It's very interesting how so many people in upper management seem to think that they can trust employees not to sabotage and cause billions of dollars in losses by paying them like 100k a year.

There are companies that support billions of economic output in countries which require a notice period. If they thought it was a risk that they would be taken down be a rogue employee, they have the option of putting them on 'gardening leave' during the notice period. This is extremely rare; they know the risk is insignificant so they are more keen to get any remaining value from the relationship (work, handover).

In our industry and many others, being a professional and maintaining good relations with your ex -colleagues, who form your professional network, is much more valuable than any emotional satisfaction from screwing them over, even without the risk of going to prison.

Does this question also equally apply to the opposite side? If an employee got so angry with how you laid them off and treated them afterwards that they decide to do what they can to damage your company?

Cutting access and having security walk them out is more or less security theater. If an employee really wanted to cause damage the odds are they either already have or will still find a way. In this scenario having generous severance and treating them with respect is likely to better defuse the situation than kicking them out the door.

This is only a problem if you treat employees in a way that makes them want to go rogue and sabotage some systems.. maybe don't fire them without warning or cause, or clear reasoning? I suppose if someone is actually able to tangibly impact some critical system, limit their access to that, but beyond that, it's just an excuse to make it sound OK to abruptly dump someone from a social and professional context. Maybe it's legal, but is it necessary? No. Is it traumatizing? Yes.

>If you were the CEO, would you take criminal/financial responsibility for that?

That is obviously decided by a court.

Ironically exactly this happens at VW, where getting fired is exceedingly difficult. Neither incompetence nor underperformance are enough.

There is a range between kicking them out instantly and allowing them to do whatever they please. Authorizations to important systems should be immediately revoked but you can allow them some time to gather their things, access to internal chat to say their goodbyes etc. Or is that an excuse for poorly designed internal controls?

Right. Because only laid-off employees can cause such a damage of course (/s).

This is a twisted way to look at the risk.

Disgruntled employees have more reason to wreak havoc. All the more reason they should be treated as humanely as possible in a difficult period that in most cases is inflicted by the company itself.