Mass layoffs in recent years have changed the market: if previously IT was mostly about hiring, now it’s about performance, role fit, and team effectiveness. We asked HR leaders from Ukrainian and international IT companies what principles they use to make decisions about firing — and whether it’s possible to return after a separation.
Mass layoffs in recent years have changed the market: if previously IT was mostly about hiring, now it’s about performance, role fit, and team effectiveness. We asked HR leaders from Ukrainian and international IT companies what principles they use to make decisions about firing — and whether it’s possible to return after a separation.
All surveyed companies emphasize that the formal «last in, first out» approach is not applied.
Olena Oleksienko, Chief People Team at EVO, says that each case is considered individually — taking into account the person’s contribution, role, results, and potential. The company looks at performance in dynamics, provides feedback and opportunities for development, and only then makes difficult decisions.
At Ciklum, according to Oksana Bogatyrevich, the head of the HR team in Ukraine, dismissal is never an automatic process. The key factors are performance and role in the project. When it comes to low efficiency, the company acts in a structured way: analysis of the situation, timely feedback, if necessary — a Performance Improvement Plan with clear goals, deadlines and manager support. Only if there is no progress is a decision made to terminate cooperation. At the same time, rotation is always considered as an alternative.
Railsware, says Daryna Kuzmyk, Talent & Culture Lead, also does not use formal approaches and emphasizes that they have not resorted to layoffs in over a decade. The decision to terminate cooperation is based on a combination of factors: work results, compliance with agreements and rules, and compliance with the role and company culture.
Oksana Bogatyrevich adds: another common reason for parting is the completion of a project or a reduction in the role on the client side. In such cases, the priority is to keep the specialist in the company — through internal rotation or finding a new project.
The project-based nature of business also applies to Intetics. Head of Talent Management Team Svitlana Svetlichna notes that sometimes even strong specialists can leave the company due to a reduction in the scope of tasks. However, the company maintains positive relationships and keeps in touch for potential cooperation in the future.
However, Railsware specifically identifies obvious grounds for immediate termination: serious cases of harassment (after an internal HR investigation) or information security breaches. Such cases leave no room for compromise.
At the same time, most decisions concern systemic problems: repeated policy violations, creating the appearance of work, regular absences, incorrect work with sensitive data, failure to implement agreed plans, or persistent performance below expectations.
The company explains underperformance simply: it is a situation when a business invests more resources in a person than it receives results — both in terms of quantity and quality of work. Moreover, low quality affects not only a single task, but also the standards of the team, requiring additional resources and the time of other specialists.
It is important that expectations are set at the hiring stage: success metrics are defined for each role, regular progress reviews are conducted, and individual development plans are in place. If there is no progress even after changing the area of responsibility, the cooperation is terminated.
Despite the complexity of separation decisions, the practice of rehiring is not uncommon.
At Ciklum, there are cases where collaboration is resumed after a break. If a person left the company of their own free will and demonstrated strong performance, rehiring can be quick and effective — thanks to familiarity with the processes and culture. If the collaboration ended due to low performance, rehiring is usually not considered.
Daryna Kuzmyk says that Railsware approaches this systematically: during offboarding, managers are directly asked whether they regret the dismissal and whether they would hire this person again. This information is recorded. If over time a better match between the role and expectations appears, the company is open to returning. But this is not a «return to the past», but a new start with clearly defined roles, expectations and metrics.
Boomerang employees are a common practice, Intetics notes. Colleagues who are already familiar with the culture and processes adapt more quickly. Re-hiring terms are revised according to the market, role, and level of responsibility — sometimes they are even better than before.
In modern IT, dismissal is not a formal mechanism or arithmetic of hiring dates. Companies are increasingly talking about role compatibility, consistency of results, and a mutual match between a person and a business. And parting does not always mean the end: with strong performance and preserved professional contact, it can become a pause before a new stage of cooperation.
