More than 1,600 companies have announced mass reductions since January this year. While much of the coverage has centered on the economic forces behind these decisions, almost none of it has examined what happens when an HR professional delivers the news, or what that moment can trigger in someone already close to a breaking point.
Threat assessment relies on a model called the “pathway to violence,” which traces how a person can move from internal distress (a grievance) to destructive action. What it makes clear is that nobody crosses from employee to insider threat in a day. There are observable steps along the way, and HR sits closer to them than any other function in the organization.
See also: 7 steps HR needs to take today to beef up cybersecurity
A finance manager mentions bankruptcy during a benefits call. A high-performing team lead stops engaging with colleagues after a divorce. An employee fixates on perceived injustices her manager cannot redirect. HR professionals occupy the room for all these conversations and more, but they almost never make it to security.
The risk factors for insider threats mirror the leading predictors of suicide: financial strain, loss of identity, mental health difficulties, isolation and a perceived betrayal. That overlap means workplace safety and employee wellness are inextricably linked. The same instincts that make a strong HR practitioner—earning trust, reading emotional cues, navigating tense dialogue—make early threat identification possible.
Why HR and security operate in silos
HR and security report to different leaders, operate under different incentives and share little professional vocabulary. Insider threats take root in the space between them.
When HR treats threat assessment as someone else’s job, no one intervenes early enough to change the outcome. By the time security receives the call, the window for a supportive, low-stakes conversation with a struggling employee has closed.
HR need not become a security function. It simply needs to share what it already observes with the people trained to interpret those observations through a security (or safety) lens. This collaboration must happen before a crisis forces them.
What happens inside the separation room
The gap between HR and security grows most dangerous during involuntary separations. Many organizations treat termination meetings as encounters to finish quickly, assuming speed limits exposure. Speed, however, only compounds risk.
Think about what you have just compressed into a few minutes. You have taken a person who may already resent the organization and stripped away income, health insurance, professional identity, daily routine and social belonging in a single conversation. For someone already navigating a personal crisis, that meeting can land as confirmation of something they have feared for months.
Many managers walking into separation conversations have never fired anyone. They need coaching on specific language and protocol before they sit across from a departing employee.
In one case I reference often, a security representative swept a conference room before a scheduled separation meeting and removed a large knife left over from an employee’s birthday celebration earlier that day. HR had not noticed it. That is not incompetence, but a gap in perspective that only advance coordination between the two departments can close.
Empathy backed by concrete action, resumé help, extended health coverage and outplacement support all give the person leaving reason to see the experience as painful but survivable. A meeting that feels rushed or adversarial adds another grievance to a pile that may already be dangerously tall.
After the door closes
Every departed employee becomes an alumnus of the organization. How they remember that final conversation greatly influences how they think of the organization, whether they move on quietly, speak bitterly about the organization or, in rare and extreme cases, become a genuine safety concern. Remaining staff draw their own conclusions, as well. The way a company treats people on their worst professional day sends a durable message to everyone who stays.
HR and security should debrief together after high-risk separations and coordinate on monitoring concerning post-departure communications. The weeks immediately following a termination carry the highest vulnerability. Remaining team members need honest, measured communication so that rumors do not fill the silence a sudden departure leaves behind.
The year ahead
Layoffs with no doubt continue through 2026. HR teams across the country face more involuntary separations than many practitioners have managed in an entire career. Every one of those conversations will be difficult. Whether they become dangerous depends on whether HR and security prepare for them together, with shared awareness of the risks, a rehearsed plan for the meeting and a genuine commitment to the dignity of the person across the table.
In many organizations, HR holds more influence with the C-suite than security does. If HR leaders claim this responsibility as their own, they can drive the cross-departmental coordination and funding that have historically lost out to competing priorities. The time to build that partnership is now, before the next round of notices goes out.
Credit: Source link
