Google lays off hundreds of ‘core’ employees
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
Next stop is Cisco.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1748-8583.12532 : "They find that investors do not react if a layoff announcement signals proactive management (e.g., cost cutting) but penalize the firm if the layoff indicates reactive management (e.g., decline in demand). The penalty is also positively associated with layoff size but unrelated to firm size. Further, investors have become less punitive over time, or if its stock is traded on an exchange in civil law (vs. common law) country. "
First, you could have phrased this differently and been less aggressive. Edit: I see you edited your comment after the fact. Good job.
But more importantly, has their been a study on layoffs like this and long-term health of companies? By the metric of the stock price, Boeing is doing better than it was 20, 30, 40+ years ago. Yes, they've have some problems, but the modern Boeing is, according to the share prices, more valuable and therefore a better company.
So, I'm also genuinely curious about if research has been done on this outside of immediate stock price and more about general strength of companies.
25% of staff's wages are a lot, but the risk of going out of business because all the talented people are left continually fighting fires is worth a lot more.
I was at Google from 2013 -> 2015 as an FTE. My impression was that there was a mix of dead wood and high performers. I knew people that basically did nothing but come in late, find the best cafe for lunch, and leave early. While others worked 12 hour days.
But the problem with laying off the deadwood, rather than firing them for cause, is that it causes the high performers to look at other opportunities and leave.
Can you explain the difference? Is being "deadwood" not cause for firing? I'm probably an average performer, but I find working with "deadwood" extremely demoralizing.
Most importantly, a layoff leaves other people with the feeling "that could have happened to me, I'd better start looking for new opportunities", where as a firing for cause generally allows one to think "that person was such a slacker, how did it take so long"...
Workers terminated for performance can collect unemployment benefits usually. The terms and meanings differ state to state and person to person.
I encourage anyone who believes this was somehow unjust or an overreaction to pick a pet cause and go disrupt executive offices at their own company to see if your company would act differently.
I guess we’re not mature enough to understand that two opposing groups can both be right.
It’s a murky world out there and Google is a global company that gave up the “Don’t be evil” motto nearly a decade ago. If you expect to work for an altruistic org—go work for one. That ain't Google and your fat TC package you enjoy is going to come with some taint and stink.
They succeeded in their mission then. They have the option of having both of those things which Google provided to them vis-á-viv their termination. Google made the decision they couldn’t make on their own.
I could never get any reasonable answer as to why these people think their role is justified. Instead the discussion would always get downvoted and flagged into oblivion. I always found it peculiar for the need of censorship brigading rather than having a reason.
I guess management has started asking the same question, and short of a convincing answer, are cutting the dead weight.
When you have so manye levels and each level needs to demonstrate impact by creating meetings, documents, reviews etc - everything is roadblocked.
Not to say we don't need reviews but people get discouraged when management doesn't actively try to make lives easier. This shows up as "rest and vest" aka no one is going to care about roadblocks if the people above won't care about it.
Everyone always thinks their coworkers aren't doing anything. It's tired and evidence-free so what's to discuss?
Your low quality response is a shining example of my quote because you haven't justified anything.
Steering the conversation frame to something else might trick the stupid, but you're not pulling a fast one on anyone with an IQ over 100.
people in Mexico can write React too, for 66% off your salary
IMHO the trend is going in the opposite direction: people with extraordinary talents find that their place in society is shrinking, as workplaces become more and more like average salary factories.