Before I get started, allow me to give you the following disclaimer.  I love going to Best Buy at the retail level, and from what I've read, it's got a lot of good stuff going on at the corporate offices as well - results-based work environment, etc.  Good stuff, and do I love gadgets.  Wish I had a blog covering gadgets.

But I'm a HR/Talent guy.  Which brings me to the topic of this post - the recent Best Buy layoffs.  Best Buy is a retailer, and it stands to reason that in a recession, Best Buy's probably going to have layoffs at the corporate level.  It's the way it works.  It sucks for anyone, but if Circuit City is ceasing to exist in this economic climate, it's stands to reason that Best Buy's corporate office is going to slim down.

I'm not inside at Best Buy.  But I think the PR surrounding the recent layoffs underscores a dangerous game, one that could reduce transparency and trust over time.  What am I talking about?  The data point provided to media outlets that while Best Buy is laying off 250 people, they're likely to land 210 new positions likely to be opened up soon.

If you've ever been through administering the communication of layoffs, one of the things that always comes up is the impacted employees eligibility for open positions.  Are they eligible to move to open positions?  Sure.  Do they have the necessary skills to be effective? Always dicey, especially for corporate specialists.  Throw in possible relocation to get to the open job, and the total odds go down significantly of one of the impacted employees landing in a new position.

So, when you craft that media kit related to the layoffs, you have to be careful citing open positions as a likely, or even possible, destination for impacted employees. 

Here are two examples of how media outlets treating the "eligible for open positions" data point.

First, from the specialist book Home Media Magazine:

"There are 40 corporate employees at Best Buy Co.’s Minneapolis headquarters who probably wish they could turn back the hands of time.

They were among the first layoffs initiated Feb. 19 by the No. 1 consumer electronics retailer at the corporate level following last month’s staff reductions in which 500 employees — prompted by expanded severance and healthcare benefits — left the company voluntarily.

Best Buy employed 3,460 people at the corporate level following the layoffs, including the relocation of 210 personnel to new positions throughout the company, according to spokesperson Sue Busch Nehring.

Best Buy has not announced any job cuts at the store level.

Now for the more "iffy" type of communication via MSNBC:

"Best Buy announced today that 250 jobs at the company's Richfield-based corporate headquarters are being eliminated.

That news is tempered somewhat by news that those employees will be among those considered for 210 new positions Best Buy will be opening soon. Together, they add up to a net loss of 40 jobs."

See the difference? I bolded the text in the Home Media piece because it underscores the reality that most of the positions referenced would require relocation from the home office, which also means most of the spots will be somewhere in retail operations.  That means that few of the impacted employees (depending on the departments) will end up in the upcoming open spots.  

Just keeping it real.  My take is that the media packet oversold the likelihood of employees landing in the 210 upcoming spots, thus Home Media's spin that only 40 employees would be impacted.  MSNBC, on the other hand, has been around the block and didn't bite.

Final take?  Don't oversell the likelihood of that type of placement happening, because the employees impacted (as well as those watching) know better.