Silent Layoffs in Tech: The Hidden Costs of a Growing Trend

Silent layoffs have emerged as a pertinent issue within the tech industry, introducing a new form of workforce reduction that remains largely under the radar. These layoffs typically involve employees being offered voluntary redundancy packages accompanied by confidentiality agreements. Such agreements are designed to prevent any potential negative publicity for the company, allowing them to control the narrative. However, this method of restructuring can have significant impacts on employee trust and morale. As companies focus on maintaining a positive public image, the repercussions of such covert actions on the workforce and corporate culture are increasingly coming into question.

The decision to employ silent layoffs often stems from a desire to manage the company's public perception while navigating economic and operational challenges. Companies may perceive the silent layoff approach as a strategic maneuver to avoid backlash that traditional public layoffs could provoke. By conducting these layoffs discreetly, they aim to minimize attention and control the narrative of change within the organization. However, this approach can inadvertently contribute to a climate of uncertainty and fear among remaining employees, leading to reduced trust and engagement. This underscores the delicate balance companies must achieve between operational needs and maintaining a transparent relationship with their workforce.

Moreover, experts highlight the potential legal risks associated with silent layoffs. Without proper management and communication, these layoffs can expose companies to legal challenges, especially if the voluntary nature of redundancies is questioned. If an employee rejects a voluntary offer and is subsequently made redundant, the initial offer may be leveraged against the company in unfair dismissal claims. This illustrates the importance of handling layoffs with clear communication and robust legal oversight to avoid detrimental consequences.

In conclusion, while silent layoffs might seem like a non‑disruptive solution for workforce reduction, their underlying effects can ripple through the organization, impacting not just the employees directly affected but also those who remain. A more nuanced approach involving open communication and compassionate leadership is often advocated as a humane and effective alternative. By fostering a culture of transparency and support, companies can navigate the complexities of workforce management while preserving trust and engagement within their teams.

Silent layoffs have emerged as a significant trend in the tech industry, characterized by companies offering voluntary redundancy packages accompanied by confidentiality agreements. This approach is designed to help businesses manage workforce reductions discreetly, thereby avoiding the potential backlash associated with traditional mass layoffs. By minimizing public scrutiny, organizations aim to maintain their image and control the narrative around their operations. However, the practice of silent layoffs presents unique challenges, including the erosion of trust among remaining employees and the creation of potential legal risks if not conducted with due diligence. Furthermore, this strategy can severely impact employee morale, as the secretive nature of such layoffs often leaves remaining staff anxious about their job security. ¹

The decision to implement silent layoffs is often driven by a company's desire to avoid negative publicity. In today's digital age, where reputational damage can quickly amplify across social media and news outlets, maintaining a positive corporate image is crucial. Many companies believe that offering voluntary redundancy packages with confidentiality clauses can ease transitions smoothly without drawing significant media attention. However, this approach can backfire, as transparency issues often lead to distrust within the workforce, potentially impacting productivity and innovation negatively. Addressing these situations requires companies to carefully balance business needs with ethical considerations, ensuring that decisions do not disproportionately affect certain groups of employees, notably women who might already be overrepresented in vulnerable roles. ¹

Critics argue that silent layoffs, while designed to maintain organizational efficiency and reputation, could offer false short‑term benefits. The erosion of trust and increased legal risks are pertinent factors companies must navigate. If not handled properly, these layoffs can lead to unfair dismissal claims, particularly if an employee refuses a voluntary offer and is later let go. Also, when employees feel their job security is at risk, it can lead to higher turnover rates as they seek more stable employment elsewhere. In the long run, this could undermine a company's competitive edge by disrupting team cohesion and losing valuable personnel. Organizations must consider the broader implications of silent layoffs and adopt more transparent, compassionate strategies. ¹

Experts highlight the importance of alternative approaches to workforce reductions that emphasize open communication and compassionate leadership. While silent layoffs might be efficient in concealing dismissals, they fail to address the root issues of employee dissatisfaction and insecurity. Transparent dialogue with employees not only fosters trust but can also improve engagement and morale. Promoting a culture of openness and attentive leadership might reduce the need for silent layoffs by encouraging a collaborative environment where concerns can be addressed before drastic measures become necessary. By supporting departing employees with genuine care and respect, companies can mitigate the negative impact of downsizing and preserve their brand reputation. ¹

The phenomenon of silent layoffs and quiet firing represents two distinct methodologies employed by companies to adjust their workforce. Silent layoffs, as highlighted in the tech industry, involve offering employees voluntary redundancy packages accompanied by confidentiality agreements to ensure minimal public scrutiny. This approach allows companies to control the narrative surrounding workforce reductions and avoid bad press, which could adversely affect their brand image and stock prices. However, it also risks eroding trust among the remaining employees and carries potential legal challenges if not managed adequately. In contrast, quiet firing is a subtler yet equally contentious method where companies intentionally create unfavorable working conditions, hoping that the targeted employee will choose to leave voluntarily. This approach can degrade morale and workplace culture, as it may be perceived as evasive and manipulative [0](https://www.computing.co.uk/opinion/2025/hidden‑cost‑of‑silent‑layoffs).

One primary reason companies resort to silent layoffs is the desire to maintain a positive public image and avoid the negative connotations associated with traditional layoffs. By keeping these layoffs under wraps, organizations aim to minimize the potential backlash from media, stakeholders, and the general public. An additional motivation is to circumvent potential internal dissent and unrest that can arise when mass layoffs are announced. Silent layoffs, when mishandled, however, pose significant legal risks. For instance, an implicit promise of voluntary redundancy can lead to claims of unfair dismissal if an employee later finds themselves forced out without a choice [0](https://www.computing.co.uk/opinion/2025/hidden‑cost‑of‑silent‑layoffs).

Quiet firing, on the other hand, undermines transparency and can foster a toxic work environment. By subtly marginalizing an employee until they resign, companies avoid the direct conflict and financial liabilities associated with formal layoffs, but at the cost of ethical business practices and employee trust. Furthermore, such strategies may inadvertently trigger the departure of valued employees, who perceive these tactics as indicators of deep organizational dysfunction. The covert nature of quiet firing can corrode team dynamics and drive employees to seek employment elsewhere, exacerbating turnover rates and damaging the company's reputation in the long run.

Both silent layoffs and quiet firing highlight the need for companies to pursue more ethical and transparent workforce management strategies. Open communication, employee engagement, and compassionate leadership are increasingly recognized as vital components in managing organizational downsizing effectively. By fostering a culture of honesty and support, companies can better navigate the complexities of workforce reductions. This approach not only maintains morale among the remaining staff but also enhances the organization’s reputation as a fair and caring employer. Transparent handling of layoffs, along with the provision of adequate support systems for departing employees, can mitigate anxiety and uphold a positive corporate culture during challenging times [0](https://www.computing.co.uk/opinion/2025/hidden‑cost‑of‑silent‑layoffs).

In the bustling corridors of the tech industry, a new strategy has been quietly gaining traction: silent layoffs. Though these actions are not openly discussed, their implications echo loudly throughout the sector. Silent layoffs, characterized by voluntary redundancy packages shrouded in confidentiality agreements, have become a means for companies to trim workforce numbers without the stigma of public layoffs. As noted in a detailed analysis of the trend, these redundancies aim to shield companies from the harsh glare of negative media coverage and maintain an outward veneer of stability and success.¹

One of the primary motivators behind silent layoffs is the desire to control corporate narratives. In an age where public perception can significantly impact business fortunes, maintaining a positive image is crucial. By opting for silent layoffs, companies attempt to orchestrate their public personas carefully, avoiding the ripple effects of unfavorable publicity. As a result, they avert potential damage to their reputation and the financial repercussions that might ensue.¹

However, despite the apparent benefits of silent layoffs for companies, these practices sow seeds of distrust among employees. When layoffs are handled surreptitiously, they breed a toxic atmosphere of uncertainty and insecurity within the workforce. Employees who remain may question their job security and the company’s commitment to transparency, which can lead to diminished morale and productivity. Furthermore, the legal challenges that may arise from these practices add a layer of complexity and potential risk that companies must navigate with caution.¹

Beyond internal corporate considerations, silent layoffs have broader societal and ethical implications. They often disproportionately affect marginalized groups, such as women, who are overrepresented in vulnerable positions. The lack of transparency in such processes not only accentuates existing inequalities but also prompts ethical questions about the fairness and justice of workplace practices. It underscores the need for companies to reevaluate their approaches to workforce management and consider more inclusive and supportive strategies.¹

In light of these motivations and consequences, industry experts and commentators call for a shift towards more humane and transparent workforce reduction strategies. Open communication, coupled with genuine employee support and compassionate leadership, is advocated as a healthier alternative. Emphasizing transparency and understanding can build trust and foster a sustainably positive organizational culture, potentially mitigating the adverse effects associated with silent layoffs.¹

Silent layoffs in the tech industry pose significant legal risks for companies, especially if not managed with due diligence. One primary concern arises when an employee who rejects a voluntary redundancy package might face eventual redundancy, potentially leading to unfair dismissal claims. These legal challenges are often grounded in the assertion that the initial offer demonstrates a premeditated intent to terminate the employment under conditions not officially recorded, thereby violating employment fairness norms [¹].

Moreover, the confidentiality agreements typically accompanying voluntary redundancy packages further complicate legal matters. They not only restrict departing employees from discussing the terms of their layoffs but also suppress any discourse regarding the organizational culture or operational practices that precipitated such layoffs. This restricted transparency could surface as legal challenges, particularly if perceived as silencing employees from pursuing claims related to discriminatory practices or unjust treatments [¹].

Legal frameworks often mandate that redundancy processes remain transparent and equitable, with clear communication about why specific roles are being reduced and what criteria are applied. Silent layoffs that lack this transparency can thus fall foul of employment laws designed to protect workers' rights against arbitrary dismissal. Companies that engage in such practices might not only face legal penalties but also damage their reputation, which can deter top talent and harm morale among the remaining employees [¹].

The repercussions of silent layoffs extend beyond immediate legal risks—it can undermine trust, which is paramount in maintaining a cohesive work environment. When employees perceive that layoffs are conducted in secrecy and without fair procedure, it erodes confidence in management and compliance with statutory legal standards. This mistrust can manifest in higher employee turnover, reduced productivity, and increased vigilance by regulatory bodies, keen to ensure compliance with labor laws [¹].

The increasing trend of silent layoffs, particularly within the tech industry, significantly affects women in the workplace. Women are often overrepresented in roles that are frequently downsized, such as administrative support and part‑time positions, making them more vulnerable to these covert job reductions. These positions, often seen as non‑essential during economic downturns, are usually the first to face cuts when companies look to slim down. Furthermore, women are disproportionately represented in remote work arrangements, a category that has seen substantial trimming during organizational restructurings. This vulnerability is compounded by the confidentiality agreements typical of silent layoffs, which restrict employees from discussing their dismissals openly. Such practices can leave women without the support networks needed to transition smoothly to new employment, thereby exacerbating the gender gap in the workplace.

Silent layoffs, characterized by voluntary redundancy packages and confidentiality clauses, have nuanced implications on the professional trajectory of women. Given that these layoffs may not be publicly disclosed, the women affected often find themselves isolated from support networks that might otherwise offer guidance and assistance. This isolation can lead to a loss of visibility in the industry, damaging future career prospects. Moreover, existing gender disparities in bargaining power and salary negotiations mean women might accept severance packages that do not adequately compensate for their roles, affecting their long‑term financial stability. Recognizing these challenges, it becomes evident that addressing silent layoffs with transparency and fairness is crucial to promoting gender equality in the workplace.

Studies show that when organizations conduct layoffs quietly through redundancy offers, it disrupts not only the individual lives of affected employees but also the organizational culture as a whole. Women, who are frequently the backbone of workplace diversity initiatives, are often removed in these unpublicized layoffs, leading to a reduction in workforce diversity. This reduction can diminish the variety of perspectives necessary for innovative problem‑solving and can harm a company’s ability to address consumer needs effectively. Such practices necessitate a reassessment of corporate strategies surrounding workforce management, advocating for more inclusive and transparent decision‑making processes that take into account the unique challenges faced by women in the workforce. Open communication and supportive measures can mitigate these impacts, ensuring that workforce reductions do not disproportionately harm women or other vulnerable groups.

Silent layoffs have emerged as a controversial practice within the tech industry, offering a stark example of how workforce reductions can be executed quietly yet controversially. One notable case is Amazon's quiet layoffs in November 2024, which strategically targeted various divisions, including devices, recruiting, and retail. This approach allowed Amazon to cut costs and streamline operations without attracting the sweeping negative attention typically associated with mass layoffs. While this method may have helped maintain the company's public image, critics argue that it undermines transparency and can lead to a breakdown in trust among remaining employees. Such tactics echo the broader industry trend of silently managing workforce reductions to avoid the repercussions associated with more publicized cuts. More about these quiet layoffs can be explored.²

Microsoft's strategy during its workforce adjustments in late 2024 and early 2025 provides further insights into silent layoffs. The company focused on strategic reassignments and voluntary departures, aiming to minimize the need for large‑scale public announcements. Such decisions were made to maintain operational efficiency while reducing the workforce without the noise of a public outcry. However, the concern remains that such tactics, while discreet, might negatively impact employees’ morale and trust in the organization. This approach mirrors the trend towards silent layoffs discussed in the industry's.²

Similarly, Google's restructuring efforts in January 2025 highlight the complexity of balancing operational needs with public perception. By targeting specific divisions for cuts, Google aimed to enhance efficiency, but this also sparked discussions about transparency and employee morale. The careful execution of these silent layoffs helped avoid the backlash of broad public announcements, but the potential for eroded trust among employees persists. Google's approach underscores the ongoing dilemma companies face between operational necessity and maintaining employee confidence. For more details, see.²

Salesforce's gradual workforce reduction initiated in late 2024 illustrates an alternative silent layoff tactic through attrition and the non‑replacement of departing employees. This method allowed Salesforce to lower its headcount subtly over time, avoiding the abruptness and associated negative publicity of traditional layoffs. Despite its discreet nature, this approach raises questions about its long‑term impact on employee morale and the possible perception of job security among the workforce. Details about Salesforce's strategy are available.²

The case of Lyft's cost‑cutting measures in March 2025 further supports the argument that silent layoffs are becoming a favored method for companies attempting to navigate economic pressures without triggering public concern. Lyft's selective department layoffs aimed at improving profitability demonstrate how silent layoffs can be strategically used to align with a company’s financial goals while potentially sidestepping the fallout of public criticism. Nevertheless, this practice highlights the importance of maintaining trust and transparency to ensure workforce morale remains intact. You can read more about Lyft's approach.²

On the other hand, numerous experts advocate for a shift towards open communication and empathetic leadership as a method to counter the adverse effects of silent layoffs. They argue that transparency and genuine dialogue with employees can foster trust and respect, creating a more resilient workforce. Such an approach not only helps in mitigating the negative consequences of workforce reductions but also reinforces a sense of community and shared purpose, which is crucial during challenging times. Instead of relying on secrecy, these experts urge companies to support both departing and remaining employees alike, ensuring that workforce transitions occur as smoothly and humanely as possible. More on this perspective can be accessed.³

The concept of 'silent layoffs' has generated a wide array of public reactions and criticisms, primarily due to the secretive nature and perceived ethical implications of these practices. Many individuals view these layoffs as a betrayal of trust that an employer owes its employees, as they often occur without any prior notice, leaving affected workers feeling blindsided and undervalued. This sense of mistrust is exacerbated by the use of confidentiality agreements, which prevent employees from discussing their layoffs openly, thereby stifling transparency and accountability. In an environment where open communication is increasingly valued, critics argue that silent layoffs epitomize the negative aspects of corporate behavior, prioritizing company reputation over employee well‑being and job security. ¹

Social media platforms and online forums are rife with discussions about the widespread anxiety and stress caused by the fear of sudden job loss due to silent layoffs. Employees express a sense of insecurity and uncertainty, fearing that their jobs could be eliminated without warning, leading to a toxic work environment. The hush‑hush manner in which these layoffs are conducted has prompted calls for more humane and ethical approaches, with many advocating for transparent processes and employee support systems to be in place. Public backlash often centers around the ethical dilemmas these practices represent, as they are perceived as corporate strategies to sidestep both legal obligations and public censure. ⁴

The repercussions of silent layoffs also have a broader resonance, affecting not just those who lose their jobs, but also the morale of remaining employees. Workers often find themselves operating in an atmosphere of heightened tension and reduced trust towards leadership, which can stifle innovation and collaboration. As a result, the company culture can suffer greatly, becoming more competitive and less cooperative. This climate can precipitate increased turnover rates, where talented employees leave for more stable environments, thereby exacerbating the problem. Many industry experts insist that resolving this issue requires not only a change in layoff strategies but also an overarching shift towards embracing transparency and empathetic management practices to rebuild trust both internally and externally. ⁵

The trend of silent layoffs in the tech industry is raising significant economic implications for both companies and employees. On the surface, silent layoffs might appear to be a strategic move to manage costs without attracting negative attention. However, these actions can result in a range of unforeseen economic consequences. By eroding trust and morale among remaining employees, silent layoffs often lead to diminished productivity and innovation. This decrease in workforce enthusiasm and engagement can eventually affect the company's financial performance, as a demotivated team may struggle to maintain competitive advantages in a rapidly evolving tech landscape. Additionally, the risk of legal challenges is heightened when employees perceive unfair treatment, possibly leading to costly litigation and settlements.¹

Further compounding the economic strain is the risk of losing valuable talent. Companies adopting silent layoffs might face a backlash, as other employees, observing the opaque handling of workforce reductions, could choose to leave for more transparent and supportive work environments. This talent drain is economically detrimental, as the cost of recruiting, training, and integrating new employees can far outweigh the short‑term savings gained from silent layoffs. Moreover, a company's reputation might suffer, reducing its attractiveness to potential hires and limiting its growth prospects. The cumulative effect of these challenges might also hinder innovation, as teams become more risk‑averse in a climate of uncertainty.

Silent layoffs also pose a threat to the broader economic environment by potentially contributing to stagnation within the industry. When companies emphasize cost‑cutting measures at the expense of employee well‑being, the larger economic ecosystem risks slowing down, as the talents and innovations necessary for progression are stifled. In an industry heavily reliant on rapid advancement and creative problem‑solving, such stagnation can have far‑reaching impacts. By adversely affecting employee morale and stability, silent layoffs might impede the tech sector's ability to drive economic growth, ultimately reflecting in the broader market dynamics.

The practice of silent layoffs carries profound social implications, particularly within the tech industry, where it creates a pervasive environment of uncertainty and mistrust among employees. These secretive dismissals can lead to heightened anxiety and stress due to the lack of clarity and open communication, adversely affecting job satisfaction and mental well‑being of the workforce. The ambiguity surrounding employment status can foster feelings of isolation among employees, diminishing teamwork and collaboration. Additionally, such layoffs often disproportionately impact women, who are overrepresented in roles frequently targeted during downsizing, thereby exacerbating gender inequalities within the sector.¹

Moreover, the psychological toll of silent layoffs extends beyond those directly affected, permeating the entire organizational culture. Fear of unexpected job loss can undermine morale, making the remaining workforce less inclined to engage and innovate, ultimately affecting overall productivity. This climate of uncertainty can lead to increased employee turnover, as workers seek out more secure and compassionate workplaces. The narrative of silent layoffs can also lead to public backlash as companies are perceived to prioritize their image and financial bottom line over the well‑being of their employees, raising ethical concerns within the broader society.⁶

In response to these social ramifications, there is a growing call for businesses to adopt more transparent and empathetic approaches to workforce reductions. Implementing open communication channels and providing psychological support are crucial in addressing the adverse effects of silent layoffs. Companies that promote such values may foster stronger internal and external relationships, enhancing both employee loyalty and public reputation. These measures not only contribute to a more positive workplace culture but also set an ethical standard within the industry, emphasizing humane treatment and the welfare of all employees.⁷

The rise of silent layoffs within the tech industry is not just an economic or social issue, but one with profoundly political implications as well. As companies navigate the complexities of maintaining positive public images while managing workforce reductions, the discreet nature of these layoffs may trigger legislative and regulatory reviews. Instances of silent layoffs may raise severe concerns about potential abuses, particularly if layoffs disproportionately and unfairly target specific demographic groups within the workforce. This can lead to calls for stricter enforcement of existing anti‑discrimination laws and perhaps the introduction of new regulations aimed at protecting employees from clandestine employment practices. Moreover, the trend of silent layoffs and its outcomes could spur discussions surrounding labor rights and protections. Lawmakers might feel compelled to revisit labor policies to enhance the protection they offer, ensuring that employees cannot be easily pushed out without cause or reasonable recourse. These discussions could extend into broader questions about automation and technological advancements, shining a spotlight on the need for legislative frameworks that can prevent displacement due to technology and restructuring. This may include investments in retraining and upskilling initiatives that prepare the workforce for inevitable changes in the job market.

Additionally, the negative perception of the tech industry, amplified by these clandestine layoffs and their perceived impacts on wealth inequality, may increase political pressure on tech companies and their leaders. Political figures, whether on local, national, or international stages, may point to these practices as exemplars of unchecked corporate power and influence. They could advocate for or push through measures aimed at fostering fair labor practices and equitable growth, using silent layoffs as a critical example of the need for change. As scrutiny of the tech industry deepens, we might witness heightened demands for transparency and corporate accountability from both policymakers and the public.

The political landscape surrounding the tech industry may change as a result of silent layoffs, with increased advocacy for regulations that enforce transparency and ethical considerations in corporate restructuring processes. As public frustrations mount over job security concerns and economic inequalities, these issues might become central to political platforms and electoral campaigns, especially in regions heavily reliant on the tech sector. Policymakers could seize the moment to champion worker protections as a way of appealing to constituents who feel threatened by the unpredictability of modern employment landscapes. Ultimately, how political entities respond to the phenomenon of silent layoffs might significantly shape the future of labor rights and corporate governance.

Effective workforce management strategies in today's rapidly evolving business environment require an understanding of the subtle dynamics at play within large organizations. The trend of silent layoffs, as discussed in the context of the tech industry, highlights the importance of alternatives such as transparent communication and compassionate leadership. Silent layoffs, where employees are let go with confidentiality agreements to maintain the company's public image, could potentially harm trust and morale among remaining staff members, as explored in [this article](https://www.computing.co.uk/opinion/2025/hidden‑cost‑of‑silent‑layoffs). By fostering a culture of open dialogue and supporting both departing and staying employees, organizations can mitigate these negative effects.

Another cornerstone of effective workforce management is strategic planning during times of workforce reduction. Instead of resorting to silent layoffs, which may lead to mistrust and anxiety, companies should consider strategies that focus on employee engagement and development, as emphasized in expert opinions. This approach not only boosts morale but can also enhance productivity and innovation. Moreover, minimizing legal risks through transparent practices helps in protecting the company from potential litigations related to unfair dismissals, as warned in [this expert analysis](https://hrzone.com/silent‑layoffs‑and‑how‑they‑bite‑back/).

Additionally, drawing insights from notable practices such as Microsoft's strategic realignments and Salesforce's gradual workforce reduction, which emphasize reassignments and non‑replacement of roles respectively, can offer valuable lessons on managing workforce changes. By adopting similar strategies, companies can balance cost‑cutting with employee welfare, demonstrating a commitment to their workforce that extends beyond mere financial considerations. These methods reflect a deep understanding of the workforce as an asset rather than a liability.

Furthermore, being responsive to public sentiments and social media discussions highlights the necessity for clear communication channels within organizations. Public backlash, as reported, against silent layoffs in tech underscores the essential need for transparent communication strategies that emphasize company values and vision. By incorporating open communication policies, companies can navigate the complexities of modern workforce management effectively and align their strategic objectives with stakeholder expectations.

In conclusion, the phenomenon of silent layoffs in the tech industry reveals the complex interplay between business strategy and workforce management. While companies may resort to such tactics to maintain their public image and minimize immediate fallout, the long‑term implications can be profound. Silent layoffs, characterized by their confidential nature, often erode the trust and morale of remaining employees, fostering an environment of uncertainty and anxiety. The psychological and operational costs are not just borne by the employees but can ripple out to affect the broader organizational culture and productivity, ultimately impacting the company's performance and reputation.¹

Moreover, as public awareness of silent layoffs increases, so does the scrutiny of corporate practices. Employees, industry experts, and the general public are advocating for more transparent, compassionate approaches to workforce reductions. By prioritizing open communication and ethical management practices, companies can rebuild trust and foster a more supportive workplace environment. This shift not only benefits the individual employees but also enhances the company's reputation as a fair and responsible employer, helping to attract and retain talent.⁶

Looking ahead, it's essential for tech companies to learn from past experiences and adopt strategies that align with the values of transparency and fairness. This means not only addressing the immediate challenges posed by restructuring but also considering the broader implications on workforce dynamics and societal expectations. As companies navigate these complexities, there is an opportunity to lead by example, setting new standards for how workforce changes can be managed with integrity and compassion.¹