Thread regarding Cigna layoffs

what's the layoff calendar look like for 2026?

@13b Nice copy paste from AI.

They don’t care. The politics aren’t going to change because the people in power benefit from those politics.

With low/lean headcount, the expectation from leadership is that high performing employees can and will pick up the slack from layoffs and offshoring, so most high performers will either downshift or get burnt out. Rewards won’t help, and PIPs are a method of control that won’t change.

The AI EO (new branding) are too overloaded reviewing the new means amount of AI initiatives that they can’t get their head out of their shoes. Doing anything else would require a lot more staff. Not gonna happen.

Wishcasting is fun, but reality is what we deal with everyday so don’t expect any good ideas to be implemented.

Are they really letting people go because they don't know AI or can't work with AI? Or are some managers, instead of taking retirements, using AI as an excuse to lay off people under them to protect their own positions? From what I've seen, that's the real story at Cigna.

@13b I believe we are on the 5th or 6th iteration of an AI COE. So, maybe they should get AI to decide what it wants to be when it grows up.

For Cigna to build a stronger and more innovative culture, workforce decisions should focus on organizational behaviors that hinder growth—not simply on reducing headcount for AI initiatives. AI-driven cost cutting alone will not solve deeper cultural problems.

In my opinion, the company should address the following issues:

1. Reduce organizational politics. Employees who spend more time on internal politics than delivering results can slow decision-making, delay projects, and negatively impact productivity.

2. Support high-performing and ambitious employees. Managers should encourage innovation and career growth rather than discouraging ambitious employees through unfair evaluations or inappropriate use of performance improvement plans (PIPs). A culture that rewards initiative is more likely to retain top talent.

3. Eliminate toxic leadership behaviors. Leaders who create division, encourage conflict, or foster a hostile work environment can significantly damage team morale, collaboration, and employee retention.

The company should establish an independent review process to identify persistent patterns of toxic leadership, unethical conduct, and behaviors that undermine collaboration. Addressing these issues would help create a healthier workplace.

At the same time, Cigna should invest in employees who are eager to learn and innovate. Creating a strong technical council or AI Center of Excellence to educate teams, share best practices, and accelerate AI adoption would position the company for long-term success.

Without addressing toxic workplace behaviors and promoting a culture based on merit, accountability, collaboration, and continuous learning, the organization may continue to experience unnecessary disruption and struggle to reach its full potential.

Id--ts. There's truly no other explanation for the terrible decisions being made.

@h7 Assuming you share the same VPN network as your coworkers, I guess you could just create an AI agent that identifies all your coworkers shortcomings and summarize that information by coworker in bulletin format and then send that to your leader, as to why your coworkers should be laid off before you.

Of course, I guess they could always do the same to you, assuming they have not already.

@OP if want to keep your job then you need to develop an AI agent that will choose and fire people. Cigna might not exist in another year, but at least you can console yourself that the alligator ate you last.

@ec Blacrock greed fueled by that one country that has ruined America

@bp The fact that managers who didn't have any input into who is laid off have to tell their employees that they're losing their jobs is sick. The senior leader who made the decisions should have the guts to notify the employees themselves.

I've seen this happen in my area (Provider Service / Ops) and several managers told me that the wrong people were selected for layoffs. But these managers and supervisors were never consulted about the value and impact of the people on their teams. Their bosses barely even know the people on their managers' teams so it's a mystery how some of the decisions were made.

Nothing will ever change here with upper management the leaders who cannot invent or improve the products to charge more $$ - laying off workers as the (injection) will carry all the way to the top

Eventually you won’t have enough workers to keep it a float and we all sink

This topic should be pinned at the banner so every leader can figure out the dealt- spin cycle we are in vs laying off people as a solution

@e5 Correct. Cigna has no path to long-term EPS growth and this aggressive cost cutting is just a desperation tactic to maintain short-term results. AI may deliver some benefits in some areas but is far from a silver bullet to solve Cigna's many problems. Sorry to break it to those who don't already understand this, but the company has no grand strategy.

I do place a good deal of the blame on Wall Street expectations, which have gotten out of hand. If a mature, profitable company can't constantly produce unrealistic 9-10% annual EPS growth, it's deemed a failure and punished by the stock market. The obsessive focus on quarterly earnings is destroying many companies and is a very bad sign for the future of the US economy.

@bp
“ This company is imploding.”

Yes
Cigna’s business model can no longer support shareholder expectations. There is no clear path to increasing revenues (can’t raise premiums), so the only reliable way to maintain profits (increase stock prices) is through serious workforce reductions. Sure, they may find savings here & there, but layoffs give the needed injection. The problem with layoffs has long been an equivalent reduction in employee output. They’re banking on AI to absorb most of this pain with little impact to work volume.

The lack of profit options is driving this “implosion” referenced by @bp.

C suite looks at finacial projections and long term strategy. They work with finance to decide what divisions to reduce to prepare for sale, or to shut down in order to free up cash, right-size / transfer to cheaper labor, make more attractive for sale (clean up for the potential buyers) etc...
Finanace does the human resouce spreadsheet work with HR. Then the numbers are crunched, then are given to the VP's and Directors to work with thier local HR people to decide who gets the axe. It's partially objective as those paid at the top of their bands or a bit above are looked at. Also, those are those who have ever had a PIP or just average reviews are looked at first. It's subjective as not all director's and VPs know who works for them and who actually gets work done well. Its the political game to a point as well. Yes, it's personal sometimes.

Obviously they offer retirement bridges and payouts to the volunteers, but that's never enough. A few days ahead of time, HR works with IT to prepare to cut access to log-in and building access at the time emplyees are told. Most of the time they cowardly leave the dirty work to the senior and direct managers of those getting let go. They are told the afternoon before or morning of. They are given a script and a list. An HR person will sit with them and explain the process.

I have been on both sides of this. It su-ks. I have left every organization that made me do mass layoffs. not because of the fact they happened, but because of the cowardly way they do it.

I can tell you how it works from direct experience. I’m a senior director who has been involved in decisions for two rounds of layoffs over the past year.

1. Finance determines how many positions need to be eliminated and gives each business unit’s senior leader (usually at the VP level, but sometimes a managing director, depending on the unit) their specific job elimination target they need to hit.

2. The business unit leader either a) tells their direct leadership team (high band 5+) how much each of them need to cut from their individual teams and asks them to provide a list of names or b) the leader comes up with the list of names themselves and doesn’t tell their direct reports anything until the day the layoffs happen.

3. Finance, HR and ELT approve the final lists.

4. Impacted employees are notified. This can be very awkward. Sometimes the manager who actually has to notify an impacted employee had ZERO input into the decision and only found out about it themselves the same day of the layoffs. I’ve had to make decisions about people on my team but wasn’t allowed to tell their direct manager or supervisor before the layoff occurred. I also wasn’t allowed to ask any of the managers on my team for input on which positions/people should be eliminated. This is being kept very tight, primarily at a band 6+ level, with high band 5s sometimes being involved.

This is exactly how it happened both times in my org. Other people managers I’ve talked to confirmed they had the same experience. It really su-ks and I’ve lost some good people. I also know that I could be cut at any time. This company is imploding.

@a2 Not just outliers in salary, but outliers in who is vocal vs who tows the line. If you shut up and get in line, your typical "yes person" you are likely fine. If you rock the boat, albeit to share ideas and actually give suggestions to improve or do something better... well, you might just find yourself on the block. My experience is that many managers and directors are just doing lip service. Interesting how all of sudden there are many Directors and Sr. Directors, (with Chiefs of Staffs, which is something new in the last 2 yrs), and where do these people all come from.... Capital One.

My guess is they get a target to cut. They get some guidance about people who are outliers in salary, have fewer direct reports than other managers (where applicable), or underperform. Maybe then managers advocate for critical roles or try to find funding.

Then the target to cut changes and like every big decision around here lately they just go random and start hacking away.

As in who makes decisions on who to let go specifically not whether to do layoffs or not