> Layoffs suck and no one wants to do it, but sometimes it's needed to save the ship.
But they always fire the weak employees, not the ones that can easily help themselves.
Maybe we should have some laws that randomize the layoffs ...
But they always fire the weak employees, not the ones that can easily help themselves.
Maybe we should have some laws that randomize the layoffs ...
This is definitely not the case. Companies use a lot of different mechanisms to choose who to lay off, and it's rarely entirely performance based.
Some combination of personal dislike and unfamiliarity.
The people making the cuts are not line managers and are sometimes given very short amount of time to make their cut list. So "oh I know that person" stays vs "I have no idea what they do / they asked me a pointed question in a meeting once" goes.
once i was on a team of 2 ICs and a Manager - only the manager stayed - the company is now about to fold. Other time i was let go as part of the entire US arm
There's just too many people, the decision making is too quick, at too high a level.. and more driven by cost / future strategy (so which teams to cut deeper).
Employees, acutely aware that their efforts might be disregarded in the next round of cuts, become increasingly disincentivized to exceed expectations. The result is a workforce more focused on survival than excellence, fostering an environment where mediocrity thrives.
No, it's a very poor idea to force companies to lay off at random.
We have attached shame and this idea that it is "hurtful" likely because it is so rare. At a place like a hedge fund, firing the bottom 10% of people is relatively normal, so being fired can sometimes just mean "you had a bad 6 months" not "you am a terrible person who does not deserve to work anywhere" (which seems to be how tech people and Europeans think of it). In that environment, there isn't any shame involved in the firing and everyone gets on with their lives (usually including a cushy severance package).
These layoffs do not generally happen when executives and companies fail; they happen as a matter of course. They are, of course, accompanied by rhetoric about executive failure (again, a cultural cover), but nothing more. When executives actually fail, executives get fired.
Also, can you explain the layoffs at Google this way? The layoffs at Meta? Microsoft? TikTok? Are all of these the result of underperforming executive teams? Are they even related at all to business trouble?
Or is it perhaps something closer to what I am suggesting?
Layoffs happen in waves at these companies. It really has nothing to do with performance. They do it every time they can, and the best explanation for that is that they are trimming the fat. Companies all say "we hit hard times" when they do this, but most of them really didn't. The issues with Dropbox's core business have likely been foreseen for 5-10 years.
Yeah, but we'll blame the workers anyway for "underperforming". nevermind that the only real change was that they got harder to get tax breaks on.
>Are they even related at all to business trouble?
I kinda agree with you, but also: yes they all had business troubles. Meta fumbles with VR hard and shuttered its in-house VR studio that otherwise put out well acclamed games. Microsoft is on shakey ground with OpenAI and their Xbox division is fumbling from the worst time to spend $70m on an aquisition. Tiktok may or may not be banned from the Unites States and that will take a hit (this one isn't really their fault, but alas).
We used to live in an age where leadership meant something, when people took responsibility for their failures. Now executives make excuses, they even have people like you making excuses for them, and instead of forgoing a bonus or handing over the reigns to more qualified team, they play with peoples livelihoods and you think that's perfectly acceptable, even called it cultural.
Anyway, given the age we live in, I'm not surprised at all to see people kissing their asses.
"Not working out" is doing a Herculean amount of lifting. In this case, "not working out" is "we want to make earnings calls look better and do more work with less people". Yes, you are hurting everyone in your company by doing that.
>We have attached shame and this idea that it is "hurtful" likely because it is so rare
Yes. I'd really hope that the singular good thing from this 5,6,8 round interview cycle for hiring that you somehow didn't hire someone who managed to underperform on the job. Maybe I'd even agree with you about firing culture if I believed for a second that it meant they'd be more lax in the 4 month interview process and do more probation trials.
But that's just hopes and dreams for now.
>At a place like a hedge fund, firing the bottom 10% of people is relatively normal, so being fired can sometimes just mean "you had a bad 6 months" not "you am a terrible person who does not deserve to work anywhere" (which seems to be how tech people and Europeans think of it)
Again, tell that to the recruiters. You're seeing it among peers, but there's a lot of stigma that if you got laid off you must have been "one of the bad ones". It's absolutely not true, but with so much fascination on "why did you leave your job" you can see how people really feel.
>there isn't any shame involved in the firing and everyone gets on with their lives (usually including a cushy severance package).
Yeah, I wish. Not all tech companies are created equally. Mind you I hate stack ranking, but if you're going to something as fast paced as a hedge fund, those 6 months will pay you well. So you're rolling the dice youself there.
Yeah, I agree with you that this is mostly on the risk-aversion of recruiters. There seems to have been this vicious cycle of firing being harder and more stigmatized combined with companies being more picky when they hire. Nobody really benefits from this, though.
Have you seen the industry lately? They don't care unless they have leadership who actually has tech experience. The company will float long enough for the next executive to worry about the consequences.
To put it more charitably: They may want to care but there's too much beuracracy to holistically figure out performance, and the stats measured are horrible 99% of the time anyway. So yeah, it all comes down to "vibes". Which is probably worse than random for tech workers. They won't feel short term consequences, so it's not a big deal for them if they lose a few "best and brightest" (they will probably leave after the layoff announcements anyway).
What you are referring to is called rightsizing and it's taught in business schools, but almost never implemented well. I would guess it's because it takes to long to figure out who's weak and who's not and they are in a hurry to cut costs.
There's no consistent layoff strategy. Especially not in times like this.
> Impeding this flow with regulation is a great way to create a malfunctioning economy.
yup, and look where we are heading next year...
If not, I think you have a highly unrealistic opinion of who the company operates for.