A layoff fundamentally changed how I perceive work
mertbulan.com
mertbulan.com
There are a few reasons for this, but the most concrete is that your behavior in this job has an impact on getting the next one. The author is correct that exemplary performance will not save you from being laid off, but when layoffs come your next job often comes from contacts that you built up from the current job, or jobs before. If people know you are a standout contributor then you will be hired quickly into desirable roles. If people think you are a hired gun who only does the bare minimum that next role will be harder to find.
On top of that, carrying around bitterness and cynicism is just bad for you. Pride in good work and pleasure in having an impact on customers and coworkers is good for you. Sometimes that means making dumb business decisions like sacrificing an evening to a company that doesn't care, but IMO that sort of thing is worth it now and then.
To be sure, don't give your heart away to a company (I did that exactly once, never again) because a company will never love you back. But your co-workers will.
You should do a good job for individuals who will repay you later on. Companies themselves these days can sod off—they stand for nothing.
Right.
The company doesn't care.
But I do.
I don't work hard on my craft, push myself to be better/smarter/have more impact, or go above and beyond for my employer.
I do it for myself.
I tend to stick to the scope of work asked of me (though not always) for the reasons in the article, but I don't just phone it in. I put effort into writing good code, tests, and PR reviews.
In my experience, when it comes to getting the next job the only thing that really matters either way are references. If you were a too co-worker and did at least put in the effort to do good work within bounds of the scope asked for, you shouldn't have a problem.
The way I see "work" is that you are going to spend 8hrs of your day doing it, so you better feel positive about it and enjoy it. I couldn't care less about the corporate lords and I very well know I am just a line on an excel, but when I work I want to be sure I feel satisfied, I enjoy it and build trust with my team and meaningful relationships where possible.
I am not a religious person, but there is a famous saying in Hinduism - कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन | मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूर्मा ते सङ्गोऽस्त्वकर्मणि|| It roughly translates to "You have a right to perform your prescribed duties, but you are not entitled to the fruits of your actions. Never consider yourself to be the cause of the results of your activities, nor be attached to inaction."
I love the last line of it where it says "don't be attached to inaction" which means just because the fruit of labour isn't in your control, doesn't mean you can just start behaving like a someone who doesn't care.
Early in my career I watched a coworker get denied a promotion to management and make a hard turn toward cynicism. To be honest, he was not ready for a management promotion and the company made the right call. However, he was so insulted that he immediately started looking for new jobs and stopped doing more than a couple hours of work per week.
I thought his cynicism was going to backfire, but over the next several years he job hopped almost every year, getting bigger titles at every move. For a long time I was jealous that his cynicism and mercenary-style approach to employment was paying off so well.
Years later I went to a fun networking lunch. His name came up and many of us, from different local companies, said we had worked with him. The conversation quickly turned to how he had kind of screwed everyone over by doing Resume Driven Development, starting ambitious projects, and then leaving before he had to deal with consequences of, well, anything.
He hit a wall mid-career where he was having a very hard time getting hired because his resume was full of job hopping. He was requesting reference letters from past bosses multiple times a month because he was always trying to job hop. One admitted that he eventually just stopped responding, because he'd write a lot of reference letters every job-hop cycle only to have him bail on the company with a lot of technical debt later.
He eventually moved away, I suspect partially because the local market had become saturated with people who knew his game. He interviewed extremely well (because he did it so much) but he'd fail out as soon as someone recognized his name or talked to an old coworker.
The last I talked to him, he felt like a really cynical person all around. Like his personality was based on being a mercenary who extracted "TC" from companies by playing all the games. He was out of work, but asked me if I had any leads (no thanks!).
I'm no longer jealous of his mercenary, job-hopping adventure.
I've been in tech for 15 years and twice was enough for me. I now take on multiple contracts at the same time and make way more than I ever did as a regular employee.
I also won't work for startups as a full-time salaried employee anymore. They will always try to squeeze the hours out of you because they are usually trying to make a fast approaching deadline to get that next round of funding.
I had a well paying 6 month contract last summer and they wanted to hire me as a full-time, salaried employee. The problem was that I worked closely with their salaried employees and they were always overworked (many working on multiple teams) and working long hours on extremely tight deadlines.
The space was also over-saturated and when I researched the company, they were not turning a profit after a couple of years and continuing to take on rounds of funding.
When I refused the offer and wanted to continue as a contractor, they cut off all contact with me and I haven't heard from them since. It really showed me that they just wanted to overwork me and not pay.
Don't be loyal to the company, because the company isn't loyal to you. Don't overwork, don't neglect family, friends and hobbies. It's simply not worth it, you'll burn yourself out, and it won't save you when the ax falls.
But do a good job, because it's good for you, your self-esteem, your mood and your skills. If you "quiet quit", you're doing yourself a disservice. (Barring extreme cases, of course).
This is completely false. I literally haven't seen someone do a reference check once in the last 10 years. Early 2010s it was more common but this practice is dead. Now every company is a new slate. In fact, I've seen people repeatedly rewarded for jumping ship and build there career on that. Companies have stopped investing in devs, so why should devs not reciprocate?
And there are so many startups. More than you can count. There are more new ones every day than you could ever have time to apply to. They don't all have time to talk to each other.
Not saying it's not good to have pride in your work, but within reason, and within a framework of fairness and quid pro quo. Don't let people exploit you any more than you exploit them. Employment is 100% transactional and the moment you forget that is the moment you get taken advantage of.
If you're working for a startup, a layoff is a likely outcome. Most startups fail. Those that don't often end up pivoting, often more than once, and cutting costs tends to go hand in hand with that.
Layoffs from big tech companies is a relatively new phenomenon, really only since the pandemic, and they're fundamentally different. It's actually the sort of thing that Corporate America has been doing for decades. In this case, big tech companies make money hand over fist yet they have layoffs, typically ~5% of the workforce every year.
These layoffs will be perpetual because the reasons for them aren't around controlling costs, avoiding bankruptcy or any of the "normal" reasons for layoffs. The goal is suppress labor costs. People fearful for their jobs aren't demanding raises or better benefits. Plus you can dump the work the 5% were doing onto the remaining 95% who won't say no because they're fearful for their own jobs. And that's the point.
The veneer of tech companies being mavericks who were employee-focused is completely over. A lot of the "perks", which are really just part of your cojmpensation package, are getting and will continue to get cut or just made worse through less funding. At some point, you'll start getting charged for those "free" meals.
In 10 years, all the big tech companies will be indistinguishable from Boeing, Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman.
Don't over index on this. It's a small factor among many.
I sacrifice an evening - but not to my company, but to studying Leetcode to move on to the next company. I also have side hustles that I devote time to.
> when layoffs come your next job often comes from contacts that you built up from the current job, or jobs before. If people know you are a standout contributor then you will be hired quickly into desirable roles. If people think you are a hired gun who only does the bare minimum that next role will be harder to find.
I am helpful to most people when they need help, and they remember this. My code is clean and well architected and well tested, and they can see this too. They also know that I know the language and platform we're using, and general programming (and business) knowledge. Few care whether I'm a "standout contributor" in terms of getting many stories done. Actually if I have a good lead or manager I might go above and beyond for them in terms of doing more.
> a company will never love you back. But your co-workers will.
Well, this is correct. I help my co-workers.
Things are situational. If I got a job helping set up LLM's or something, I might dive in and work a lot of hours just because I feel it is benefiting me too. On the other hand I can be somewhere where it doesn't make sense to work more than forty hours (if that) a week.
And when more and more people are like this, the average quality goes down, so it is even easier to be average.
Pride in my work? Sometimes I have pride in my work. Doesn't mean I should open myself to be exploited.
That is a double-edged sword. You can do it, but it really should come from a place where you're fully prepared to leave, and you'd really prefer you didn't. Sometimes, companies underpay. You should be continually engaging in price discovery, and you should demand to be paid what you're worth.
Just be aware that your company may well say "oh well, good luck", and the new company may be worse. In smaller companies, you might set yourself up for resentment if you stay. Large tech companies really will just coldly look at "is she/he worth it? Yes/no", make that decision, and move on.
> but when layoffs come your next job often comes from contacts that you built up from the current job, or jobs before.
You build those contacts by helping people, not by helping the company. (Also, referrals are massively overvalued, IMHO. I'm not seeing them happening very often - but maybe my friend group is an outlier. Wonder if there are stats)
> carrying around bitterness and cynicism is just bad for you.
Realism, however, is helpful. Your company will throw you away like a used paper tissue. Make peace with it. Don't believe the "we're family" BS, because you aren't. You're at best the equivalent to a sports team. And when the team doesn't need you anymore, you'll be let go.
And that's fine. What makes it painful is lying to yourself, pretending a company could actually care about you as a person. (Small carve-out: Tiny companies, with <30 or so people, still can manage to care)
That doesn't mean phoning it in, or doing shoddy work. It does mean being clear about the fact that you have to look out for yourself, your wellbeing, your health, your career.
You're right in that your co-workers are the only ones who have the capacity to love you back. But I can guarantee you that working harder won't make you more loveable. Work well, but be clear where your boundaries are.
That hasn't really been true in my experience. This might be another one of those cultural shifts. work connections in general are looser and you need to do a lot more than just casually chat at work to really "stand out". People are arguably overworked and have no time to perceive who does what work how efficiently unless you're a direct co-worker or a lead.
I agree with don't be a grouch. No one like a grouch unless its calling out bad leadership. But I think being nice is better than trying to be the best. People remember how you made them feel, and current work (epecially WFH) may limit how much you get to impact a specific person's workload.
>On top of that, carrying around bitterness and cynicism is just bad for you.
YMMV. how you process that matters a lot. If you use some cynicism you can protect yourself. If youre all cynicism you become a grouch.
>Sometimes that means making dumb business decisions like sacrificing an evening to a company that doesn't care, but IMO that sort of thing is worth it now and then.
only in a market as bad as this where you don't want to go back to job searching. But normally, I wouldn't do this. Especially in my industty: give them an inch give them a country mile, and then that "crunch" period has become 70 hour workweeks for 6+ months.
Yes, and that hurts that first time. Especially when you gave a lot (like some 70hrs weeks and then you immune system shuts down) or working during a funeral, in the back room...
Companies will grow and shrink, layoffs will happen, employees will make bad or unfair decisions, but at the end of the day, companies exist because we are more productive as an organized group than we could be on our own. Of course you have to be strategic, but ultimately the healthiest motivation for working I can think of is to just focus on creating something of value.
The core fallacy of this blog post is that he expects the company to value and appreciate him. He gives positive examples of helping customers and coworkers, but concludes that they were for nothing because he got laid off. But a company is not a person that can affirm or reject you. It's just some abstract way of organizing labor with some CEOs and managers doing their thing. It makes no sense to work -for- the company. Yes work for yourself, but also for your coworkers and the people the company serves.
Work is purely transactional, I give the company the benefit of all of my accumulated skills and experience for 40 hours per week, they put money in my account and I then use that money to exchange for goods and services.
Whenever one party or the other decides that the transactional relationship is no longer beneficial, we part ways.
If I find a company where the transaction is more beneficial - pay, benefits, work life balance, etc - depending on my priorities at the time, I go work for that company. I’ve worked at 10 companies in the past almost 30 years and 6 of those have been in the past 10 years.
> Sometimes that means making dumb business decisions like sacrificing an evening to a company that doesn't care, but IMO that sort of thing is worth it now and then.
Uh yeah that won’t happen unless it benefits me in some way like I’m learning a new to me technology or finishing a project I am leading will look good on my resume.
I made an exception when I was working for a company that sent nurses to the homes of special needs kids and they wouldn’t get paid on time if the project wasn’t done - before Christmas. They would have gotten paper checks that they would have had to either pick up from their central office or get it mailed to them and when I was working for public sector clients during Covid and it helped them get their disability and unemployment checks on time.
Would you consider employers to be "fully cynical" about their affairs and interactions with employees? I do. Being a happy little cog is it's own reward, but ine has to be clear-eyed about it.
> If people know you are a standout contributor then you will be hired quickly into desirable roles.
You are presenting a false dichotomy - one can be an outstanding contributor while working 40 hours per week.
I was laid off once, when I was being widely praised for my work. It's been 5 years, financially it was probably the best thing that ever happened to me, and it still hurts that it happened. So yeah...
Guess what. That's cynical too.
> On top of that, carrying around bitterness and cynicism is just bad for you.
No, it's not. Cynicism is just having the correct model of reality and learning to thrive with it is the best skill you can possibly develop. But the first step is becoming a cynic. Overwhelming bitterness is of course bad, but it's not the end of the road for cynicism, it's just the beginning. A non-cynic can see only this and it looks to him like a cliff that would crush him. Seasoned cynic sits high on top of the cliff of bitterness he climbed, quite happy, having a clear look on both sides. On the world of people who fear cynicism and on the smooth hills on the other side that non-cynics can't possibly fathom.
Yes, each person's network is more important now than ever - as we seem to have achieved pretty thorough uselessness of classical job postings, job boards and applications. Some parts of building that network are simple: do ask people for contact info for example. And another part is simply showing up, doing work and getting it recognized by the people around you - that's more long term effort certainly but has nothing to do with how much you don't respect the corporation that employs you or the least palatable of your co-workers or managers. On the contrary, find the more competent people in that mess around you, and favor them.
Even the people you don't respect might easily some day be among the people in other companies that will need you. You may then do everything you can not to work for them, but even keeping that lack of respect out of sight is in your interest. (And okay, for some of these people it's hard.)
[ citation needed ]
Every job I've worked at has specified when we provide references, we're to say "X was employed from Y to Z" and if we would hire them again, yes or no. The employee described here would get a yes from me. The fact that they didn't go "above and beyond" will not help them get a job, at least if they happened to work for any of the companies I have.
> If people know you are a standout contributor then you will be hired quickly into desirable roles.
I guess we could quibble over definitions then, because I as a senior dev managing other devs am perfectly happy with someone who clocks in, does the work on-time and to-spec, and then clocks off as a "standout contributor." I've chastised a few people in my time for committing code on the weekends too, not because I don't appreciate their contribution, but because I consider it part of my job to prevent burnout, voluntary or otherwise.
Burned out devs turn out worse work, and they feel worse in the bargain. Textbook definition of a lose-lose. Whatever code is being a pain in the ass today is just that; code. It will be there when you get back from the weekend, it will be there when you get back from a doctor's appointment, it will be there when your kid is done being sick. Life matters. Code... does, but to a lesser extent.
> On top of that, carrying around bitterness and cynicism is just bad for you.
Which is why I don't want people feeling bitter about their job, and putting in the extra work to, by your own admission, be just as damn likely to get the axe for reasons that are out of your control? That's embittering as fuuuuuuuck.
> Pride in good work and pleasure in having an impact on customers and coworkers is good for you.
False dichotomy. I love what we build, and I want my subordinates to have fulfilling, happy lives. And I proportion my energy to both of those things in accordance with their importance.
This is an argument in favor of managing optics. Whether people perceive you going above and beyond may matter, even if actually going above and beyond truly does not.
Totally agreed. A big downside of taking contracting job is that one does not get equity. There can be exceptions but in general equity is reserved for permanent employees.
That aside, I highly recommend people view the employment as an alliance. When employee aligns with the company, work hard. When the alliance is not there, break apart and no hard feelings.
My thoughts, exactly.
I do good work, because I can’t live with myself, if I don’t.
I've been in this field for ~7 years and have never found this to be true, yet people parrot it all the same. I have never once received a job via reference, and only once was able to get someone else a job by reference. I feel this is only true when you're at the very senior level.
No it doesn't.
You might be hired on the strength of reputation or recommendation into an early stage startup, but these roles only make sense if you’re 23.
People who do good work, and get good at craft, do it as much for their sense of pride as they do for some kind of reward. Rewards are nice, but the joy you get from them are fleeting. Enjoying the work itself is evergreen.
Work is work. Even at a job you like, you'll have days where you'd just rather be out having a day off. Don't get indoctrinated into hustle culture.
But don't get cynical and start being a pleb about jargon or whatever. It's like a person stuck in traffic complaining about traffic as if they aren't... traffic?
Not my experience.
I mean sure I’d love smooth sailing at a FAANG interview with all my friends in the process. I know some of you guys are getting on niche teams that way
but in the mid market and other startups, I’ve found there are enough to go around. Reputation doesn't matter one bit, and the “glut” is in entry level and former FAANG employees only looking for FAANG compensation.
I just keep 2 mid market and start up roles at once if I have some financial goal and its close enough to decent FAANG compensation. I don’t put short stints on my resume, and get exposed to a lot more.
My only studying is bombing another startup’s interview process and using what I had forgotten to ace a subsequent one
I could study to get above average FAANG compensation that would eclipse my 2-job situation. but I’m pretty busy with 2-jobs and the market for speculation and trading carries the rest.
The TL;DR of the article is about not doing more than you are paid to do. Not going above and beyond, and that's a reasonable approach to take in today's environment.
Companies have been exploiting these type of people for decades, and its gotten worse in recent years so much so that people have died working for some black companies.
At the end of the day, there is no amount of pay you can receive that is worth your sanity or your life.
This kind of managerial behavior seriously kills employee motivation, because it both communicates that 1) no one has job security and 2) that management is apparently incapable of managing money responsibly.
“Sorry, we spent $200k on consultants and conferences that accomplished nothing, so now we have to cut an employee making $40k” really erodes morale in ways that merely firing people doesn’t.
A former employer decided to freeze pay for a few years and later later start laying off people. During the pay freeze a colleague suggested that we might save a significant amount of money by hiring staff, rather than paying the large number of consultants we had hired. I think the ration was something like getting rid of two consultants would free enough money to hire three developers.
Managements take was that we should keep the consultants, because they where much easier to fire, two weeks notice, compared to four. So it was "better" to have consultants. My colleague pointed out that the majority of our consultants had been with us for 5+ years at that point and any cancelling of their contracts was probably more than 4 weeks out anyway. The subject was then promptly changed.
In fairness to management large scale layoffs did start 18 months later.
I got pipped, and foolish me tried hard to work on the items in the pip (to no effect). The layoff came right on schedule.
A few years later, I was chatting with an old coworker and I came to find out that the director of engineering had demanded it. It was in direct response to me refusing to participate in building a knowingly DMCA-violating product.
The pip was theater. The "times are tough" bit was theater. The reality is that the director wanted me gone, and that is how they did it for legal coverage reasons.
I don't really blame the company - I was a bad fit, and I can see that clearly in hindsight. But it did teach me never to accept budgetary layoffs at face value.
It's also easy to make the next year prediction be whatever you want since in a small company it's just you saying a number that the board doesn't think is too outrageous and in a large company involves you asking an analyst to increase the word of mouth factor of their model or whatever.
That happens more at traditional companies than tech companies, but it immediately signals that it's a crappy company steeped in "rules for thee but not for me" culture.
There is only one person who really can stop cycles hitting budgets and that is the CEO. IIRC Warren Buffett lamented the fact that the CEO is more of an investor than a manager and that spending budgets as a senior manager gives them almost no experience in setting those budgets.
Typically if the company is really in financial trouble, they will also NOT use the pre-allocated budget which was not yet spent (=200k for company events, although the budget for such things was planned and approved last year).
I have seen companies actually taking care of finances (both firing people AND blocking useless events) and I have seen companies doing what you said, which creates pure hatred.
[1] Assuming the consultants aren't also in the office with a desk etc
(Yeah, no one at PM level or above does, there's nothing relevant in them. Until one day there is.)
Newsletters, meanwhile, continue coming and announcing even greater growth due to digital transformation in the age of blockchain or AI or stuff.
Lesson learned: the first impression was correct - it's all internal marketing, and it's about as truthful and helpful to the recipient as regular marketing, i.e. not at all.
One time I was tasked with auditing what my team spent, at a tech startup. During my audit, I found that we'd spent a million dollars to make a single phone call.
Basically:
* We were spending money like it was going out of style
* We were getting the highest level of support contracts on EVERY piece of hardware and software that we bought. This mean that we would routinely purchase hardware, stick it in the corner of our data center, and it would have an expensive support contract, before it had even been installed in a rack and plugged in. In some cases, we bought stuff that never got installed.
* The software support contract from one of our vendors was a million dollars a year. The software was quite reliable. In a single year, we'd made a single support call.
Working in corporate America has caused me to view layoffs as proof of managerial incompetence. I understand that the market doesn't see it that way, but that's the conclusion I've come to.
That’s frequently the fundamental issue really.
Measuring a developer’s productivity as an IC is fairly easy. Measuring quality of manager’s decisions is tricky
Even for an investor keeping an eye on their holdings, give minimal weight to the reasons for a detail level layoff.
From politicians to corporation managers to civil servants, it's everywhere. That's it.
I have seen investors not invest even $10K into a project and then line up to invest far more for the SAME amount of shares.
When you apply for jobs, you see recruiters (who get commission from placements) tell you that your background isnt a fit when it is a perfect fit, and prefer to not show candidates.
I have even explained to recruiters that there is an opportunity to represent the candidates, like a Hollywood agent or like a seller agent i Real Estate. That the candidates would also pay a commission out of their salary, if placed in a job they actually like. And that all they have to do is call their counterpart recruiter and vouch for the candidate, which usually a quick call. But most are stuck in their ways and don’t want to tap new opportunities, no matter how easy. To their credit, some are not.
And so, it is no surprise to me that businesses waste money and then cut their task force. Many of them don’t care about you, but expect you to care about them. They’ll even expect you to stay late and demonstrate commitment, but they won’t pay you overtime.
If they cut more than five $40k employees, they've made their $200k back.
Then those who spent years working hard with minimal staff are the ones to be laid off.
This is not to say managers don't make stupid decisions, but they are more like bets. Somewhere between the fall of Nokia and the hit of iphone are thousands of decisions that lead to hiring or firing some 10-100 people.
- You're only obliged to work your contract hours. If you do more then make sure that you, personally, are getting something out of it, whether that's "I look good to my boss" or "I take job satisfaction from this" or just "I get to play with Kotlin". Consider just not working overtime.
- Take initiative, but do so sustainably. Instead of trying to look good for promo, or alternately doing the bare minimum and just scraping by, take on impactful work at a pace that won't burn you out and then leave if it isn't rewarded.
- Keep an ear to the ground. Now you've got a job, you don't need another one, but this is a business relationship just like renting a house or paying for utilities. Be aware of the job market, and consider interviewing for roles that seriously interest you. Don't go crazy and waste the time of every company in your city lest it come back to bite you, but do interview for roles you might actually take.
The last two points are fine, however.
I wholeheartedly endorse your adjustments - it is fine to go above and beyond but for heavens sake people please think about why beyond some vague competitive urge. Going above and beyond without a plan just means the effort will likely be wasted. Some cynicism should be used. Negotiate explicitly without assuming that the systems at play are fair, reasonable or looking out for you.
Do you always lurk for opportunities outside the current company (maybe some roles are more stable)? If so, how to explain in the interview that you're currently employed somewhere but concerned of their stability?
I can go above and beyond, work on the weekends etc, but there should be a benefit to me. That could be because I learn something and it sets me up for my next job, I increase my chances of a promotion, or just that it's something interesting to me personally.
I think there is probably less cynicism this way too, because this is how most companies look at employees too.
I can't say I was surprised when it happened. I knew things weren't going well and I wasn't really bringing in business. Was actually happy to move on except for the fact that the job market was really tough at the moment.
But, yeah. Under most circumstances knocking yourself out isn't worth it most of the time. I have had some product launches and on-job site projects where I sort of did for a while and that was OK. But don't make a practice of it in most cases.
I was part of a well performing team in a corporation in the US. Management told us that we've been making a real impact in the company's goals and they are going to increase our capacity to accomplish even more the next year by adding several more engineers in India to help us with tasks. The facade was well maintained - we got expanded goals for the next year, celebratory meeting for exceeding expectations etc. but you could clearly tell something was off in meetings with management. Little did we know that we ended up training our replacements.
Majority of my teammates got kicked out of the company by security, getting paperwork on their way out without a chance to even say goodbye. I was offered a role in another team, but the trust by that point was severed so much that I instead decided to take severance and leave as well.
The lesson for me has been to always act like an independent contractor or business owner, even when employed by a corporation or "family-like" startup. Based on mine and many of my friends' experiences there's no such thing as loyalty in the business setting anymore. You are on your own and you should only engage as much as it makes sense to you. Extra hours beyond what's required (e.g. beyond 40hrs) should directly and clearly benefit you.
Haha this is what my current company is trying to do now. Bet we are dragging our feet helping the team in India. If they chop our heads off now, you bet they’re gonna be left with ruins. Fuck them.
The proportion of psychopaths on the boards of most companies is off the scale:
"...Hare reports that about 1 percent of the general population meets the clinical criteria for psychopathy.[11] Hare further claims that the prevalence of psychopaths is higher in the business world than in the general population. Figures of around 3–4 percent have been cited for more senior positions in business.[6] A 2011 study of Australian white-collar managers found that 5.76 percent could be classed as psychopathic and another 10.42 percent dysfunctional with psychopathic characteristics..." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace
The kicker is that they used me in the RFP to win the contract since I was a specialized SME.
What signs were there? Or was it simply some subconscious feeling?
Then one day out of nowhere "hey btw we're not going to renew your contract, we're nice so we give you an extra 10 days of vacation don't bother coming back tomorrow, oh and all your accesses have been revoked". At least I got the reality check right away, some people get that way down the line when their whole persona has already been built around their job
Like, book clubs, political parties, community centres, sport associations etc used to be the place for that. And work was also a place for that. My parent generation worked at like 3 different employees in their whole career.
Maybe this is one of the unspoken goals of bringing people back to the office.
My family doesn't give me performance reviews.
Naturally, I walked, but to this day I can't believe how naive/stupid I was back then.
Go to small companies, yes they pay less but also yes: you will have real impact and they actually need you.
> Layoffs were uncommon when I started working, and being a developer felt like an incredibly safe job. In most professions, the unspoken rule was simple: if you performed well and the company was financially stable, your job was secure.
> But today, companies are announcing layoffs alongside record-breaking financial results.
From the author's website:
> I've been working as a Software Developer since 2016
I've been in the tech industry almost 30 years. I saw the dot com boom and the collapse. Hiring like crazy in the late 1990's with companies have having signs "WE ARE HIRING!" outside their parking lot where you could just stop on your lunch break and have a new job by the end of the day.
I've worked at companies posting big profits but still had layoffs to underperforming groups. When your profit margin is 10% but another group is 40% they will sell off or shut down the lower margin groups. Sometimes there are offers for internal transfers but it depends on the skill set.
After the dot com collapse I've never felt any trust or loyalty to my company. I have felt a huge amount of trust and loyalty to my coworkers. I still work hard. It can still be fun. But if someone needs a job it is great to have a wide network of former coworkers.
I've worked at 8 companies and only at the first 3 did I just blindly apply. The other 5 were former coworkers who recruited me to join. Then I do the same for them.
I've worked with some people for 15 years at 4 different companies sometimes with gaps of 3-4 years in between but we meet for lunch once or twice a month and keep in touch.
I was told by a coworker, when I was over 50 or so, that they could not fire me because I could turn around and make it about age discrimination at that point. I don't know if my coworker was correct — there is, as was mentioned in the blog post, a weaselly way where they lay off whole teams to avoid the blowback. (And then may cherry-pick a few of the laid-off engineers and make them a quick offer on another team.)
Earlier though in my career I had a very cool manager (hi, Steve!) that made it clear to me that The Corporation doesn't give a fuck about me. That, to that end, I needed to chart my own career path and not rely on might bright-eyed "beamishness" to get me anywhere.
In the end I did stay with Apple for the whole ride but was quicker to switch teams when I thought I was being either overworked or under-compensated. Seeing the company as the cold entity it is was in fact a liberating concept for me. Fortunately I didn't need to be personally impacted by a layoff to find that out.
Calling out internal mobility (and normalized support for taking advantage of it!) as a key corporate culture value.
I've worked for companies that make this hard/toxic/impossible and companies that make this easier/normal.
The latter are always better, healthier companies.
I really am perplexed with these kind of articles where the author has an epiphany of sorts, Are they living under a rock? My best guess - it's a click bait article.
If that's true, that could explain some of the age discrimination we see in the hiring phase... "if we hire this guy, we can never fire him". Illegal but impossible to prove, just like the reluctance to hire young women because they might get pregnant.
* If you can do the job but nobody else can and it’s a critical role you are probably immune from layoffs even with a horrible annual evaluation. It’s not you that’s critical, it’s the job you fill that’s critical.
* if you take deliberate actions to make yourself critical, such as the only person who knows the code base, it’s only a matter of time before the mega corp dumps you. Self-appointed critical people are too expensive and viewed as toxic by management, but you can probably get away with this at a mom and pops shop.
* once incompetence becomes the universally accepted norm it doesn’t matter that you can do what others cannot. Everybody is a replaceable beginner irrespective of their titles and years of experience and treated exactly as such. The survivors are the people that don’t rock the boat.
* if you have years of experience operating, managing, and authoring both people and technology in side projects you are probably far further along into your career than you are getting paid for. If your career is stagnant trying doing something wildly different and see what happens. I achieved rapid promotion after changing careers.
* don’t ever work more than you have to unless it’s something you want to do knowing you won’t get paid for it. I liked writing personal software outside of work because at work it could do my job for me or it frees me from the restrictions of shitty commercial software.
* the best way to impress management is to 1. do less work and 2. solve tough problems and share your solutions. Don’t be special. Demonstrate value.
I think at a big enough company the people making layoff decisions don't know or care what job is critical. In some cases that means your job wasn't as critical as you thought. But I've also seen layoffs that seem just downright stupid. Literally saw someone laid off then re-hired to a different team a couple weeks later with a substantial bump to their pay.
At a certain level of abstraction nothing will save you. Critical job? Bean counters don't know the specifics of each team or project. High level? Cost too much, not contributing enough to short term goals.
I was once told that a lot of executive level management was based off gut instinct more than cold logical decision making. It would not surprise me if this also applied to deciding who is laid off.
You have to be careful on this one.
Often (it varies by jurisdiction), blanket rules by companies that all software you write in your spare time are their property can be safely ignored as invalid. But if it is heavily related to your current job then (again depends on jurisdiction) then they probably do own the copyright, possibly even if they don't have an explicit contractual provision for it.
If you're using your own spare-time software at work and benefiting from it there, it would be hard to argue it's not related.
This, incidentally is good advice for both sides of an employment relationship: employers sometimes also mistakenly believe that employees are their friends and family and then get a rude awakening when employees suddenly leave with no warning, for a 10% increase in salary.
> Since I was working for a German entity of a company, I want to address a common myth about job security in Germany. Many people believe that it’s nearly impossible to be fired in Germany. While this is partially true for individuals who have completed their probation period, it doesn’t hold up in the context of layoffs. If a company decides to lay off, for instance, 40 employees, German law doesn’t prevent this. Instead, the law enforces a social scoring system to determine who is affected, prioritizing the protection of the most vulnerable employees, such as those with children. In this sense, when it comes to layoffs, the difference between Germany and the US is minimal.
The author decries how he was laid off despite his contribution then - without a hint of irony - says Germany isn't as safe for employees as most people think because layoffs are legally required to take into account information completely disconnected from your contributions at work.
Of course if you have legal structures that make it harder to fire people based on what they do outside of work, you will be forced to lay off people you otherwise wouldn't.
What are the odds the author got laid off despite his contributions precisely because somebody who earned more than him and did less couldn't be fired because they happened to have children? In the US it would be approximately zero. Even if the person picking names knows you have kids - but they don't because they're usually 3-4 levels above you - they have to justify the names to their boss and "J. Doe just had their second kid so let's keep them around until next year" will absolutely not fly.
At least this part is partially wrong. There is an entire law about how lay offs are only allowed if they are “socially justified” with definitions of acceptable circumstances. An employer can not fire you “at will” in Germany.
I am very confused about how this works in practice though. Presumably you're not expected to keep an old accountant with a family over a young childless developer, but where is that line actually drawn? Can you make such a distinction between teams, or are you expected to reassign people from a team that is being disbanded? What if they don't have some experience you would like, are you expected to train them?
There is no good answer.
Good reminder, never mix work and personal. Or at the very least maybe use a cloud service or a thumb drive.
But the thing is, I like what I'm working on, I like letting my passion dictate my actions. I want to go home at the end of the day and be proud of what I have accomplished.
But it's not worth putting in that effort for a company that treats you like any other resource. So I'm starting to become one of those soulless employees. You can call it quiet quitting or whatever. And it's slowly killing my spark.
I started working on my own projects to keep that spark alive. But 2h every day is not enough to build something that's worth it.
So I’ve replaced advent of code with various other stuff, music, woodworking, books, the great outdoors and while my life is less rich in technology it’s becoming much fuller in other ways.
I think I prefer it this way.
My hope is that after a layoff I would be able to bounce back and find a new company where I can keep on doing fun work.
Life has ups and downs. I don't think shielding yourself from emotions is a healthy path. Just like you don't have to shield yourself from others forever after a breakup. A key ingredient is to have other part of your life to support you (family, couple, friends, ...) when one is failing.
Then my department got sold to another company, and it all made sense.
Looking back it's pretty obvious that they were bifurcating while duplicating important infrastructure. At the time going through it though I just thought the consultants were total morons, not understanding the business and that we'd be doing twice the work by having two of everything.
They sold it to us while it was happening that we were the domestic team and they were the "global" team, and we bought it as a concept, but we all thought it was a stupid distraction. We were absolutely certain we'd be merging our departments within a couple years.
Finding out that they had been actively lying to us about what was going on for almost a year really... Changed how I thought about companies. They had been lying to my face every single day for a very long time, that really violated my trust.
When the times were good, the messaging was we were all one big family. When the crash came, there were weekly layoffs. Co-workers that thought they were friends turned on each other to keep their jobs.
I learned to keep a fat emergency fund. I learned to work as a mercenary. I get in, I get out, I get paid. Then I live my life, which is not work. I keep no personal effects, and can be out the door in a second. Coworkers are acquaintances, not friends.
I was laid off over 5 years ago, and, as these things usually go, it was a complete shock to me. The company had been acquired, and my services were no longer needed. It ended up being a very positive change for my career, but to this day, if I ever get a moment of déjà vu, my immediate thought is to check my phone and see if I've been fired.
it certainly can do, but it's also fine if it doesn't
when I was laid off, some family members simply refused to believe that it hadn't had a profound negative effect on how I viewed myself. Dealing with that disbelief was by far the most difficult part of the process
I felt absolutely fine, because at the time I had no emotional investment in my job or career
I didn't get laid off, but I project I put years of my life into was shut down (in a "row on a spreadsheet" type of way), and it effected me surprisingly deeply. I'm still dealing with the after effects, and reading this thread is making me realize it was cognitively really similar to a layoff.
I wish it didn't bother me as much as it did, but that doesn't change the impact.
In general I don't think that the style of work that leads to burnout is desirable at any stage unless if it's for your own startup and perhaps not even then.
One day I woke up and grey haired and not rich. I felt that my youth had disappeared, I had various minor health problems. Why did I work till 2am for a fortnight to solve problem X? The project was cancelled after I left or never made any money or whatever - it was for no great achievements. I got laid off anyhow.
I encountered plenty of people that generated fear in others pushing towards excessive work but I noticed every one of them going home at 5pm. Do you have to take note of these bullies? Maybe not - I didn't notice them being any worse to the people who ignored their pressure.
Don't encourage other people to overwork either - be part of the solution.
It's the people that you work with who will be grateful sometimes, in small ways and overcoming problems with them creates friendships. So you must obviously try to pull your weight - I'm not advocating cynicism.
But one thing got me, I developed an original app for the company I work for, that is now one of the focus products. I wish I never, I feel like it was literally stolen from me, never ever go above and beyond for a company, your managers will get the credit.
I recall commenting few days back that, the job market is so screwed now that even senior engineers with decades of experience are not trusted these days if they are missing minor experience in some minor tool.
In 2021, I remember everyone with ability to type some code(regardless of quality) land great jobs, remote contracts etc. Everyone I know currently looking to change or were laid off since mid last year are suffering(real bad) and all of these are highly qualified people whom I’d really trust with most critical work.
Being a contractor is generally considered low status and temporary, so if you can get over that, then you can thrive.
The upside to this is the understanding that it is transactional and hourly. There is no expectation that you get emotionally invested. Which can actually be a much more health arrangement.
That's the majority of the population to be honest
> [...] If a company decides to lay off, for instance, 40 employees, German law doesn’t prevent this. Instead, the law enforces a social scoring system to determine who is affected, prioritizing the protection of the most vulnerable employees, such as those with children. In this sense, when it comes to layoffs, the difference between Germany and the US is minimal.
This is not true, and an over simplification.
Yes, you can always technically layoff in Germany, but it might not hold in court. Most people have legal insurance (mine is ~€300/y) which is tax deductible if it has employment protection. Mine will cover costs for an employment-related lawsuit.
If you feel that your layoff is not justified, you can always sue, the judge could decide that your work contract was unlawfully cancelled, leading to the company having to re-hire you and paying your salary for every month it didn't do so. The company posting record profits could weight in your favor in front of a judge. People, especially non-native like me, don't know better, they just move-on and go c'est la vie. If you sue, win and get re-hired, you can always ask to leave for a bigger package.
For companies above a certain amount of employee (50? 75?), if a small amount of employees (I think it's 3 or 4) request it, the company must run a works council election. For any layoff (individual or mass layoff), the work council must be consulted, and has co-determination, they can basically block the layoff, this was done by Volkswagen's work council recently. [1] For large mass layoffs, companies might also have to consult with the authorities.
Last thing, the social scoring is much more complicated than "those with children." If you have 4 kids and got hired 7 months ago, you might be fired, and I, single person, might keep my job with my 15 years of tenure. Tenure, disabilities, children, ... a lot of things take part into the social scoring.
All and all, I agree with a lot of the sentiments and points of the article. But saying that, outside of social scoring, layoffs between the US and Germany are the same is simply not true. There is a reasonable job security in Germany.
[1] https://www.volkswagen-group.com/en/press-releases/agreement...
Germany is just a strange country IMO. Lots of "nice" stuff like this that sounds great but really only works for the older generation and doesn't really work for young people, who are already hugely disadvantage by the German boomerocracy (probably one of the worst boomerocracys in the world).
My first layoff was rough. It was in '00 and I was 21, so I didn't have too many obligations.
My second layoff was in '23 and I was 44 with kids and a mortgage. It hit me a lot harder.
My third was in '24, but I had learned my lessons and had positioned myself better, so I wasn't as badly affected.
I personally find interviewing exhausting. I also feel slightly guilty interviewing when I'm happy where I'm at because I have been a hiring manager and know how much goes into a good interview process from the company side. (Not saying don't do that, but it's hard for me to do so.)
If interviewing is tiring, another alternative that requires less work is to be active in a larger tech community. Whether that is here, local meetups, or on social media, being active can raise your profile and keep connections warm. This will help if/when you are laid off.
Turned out that this "runway" factored in dumping all the American devs and replacing us with workers overseas who made ~35-40% of what they paid us.
My recent experience in the "data" world taught me that many companies in the US actually want contractors, but our employment laws make it make being "full-time" not that different than a contractor.
Another thing I learned was to never jump on R&D type projects unless you are in a very close communication loop with the leadership. If they are going to see you as a consultant on retainer, you have to always be delivering and improving on stuff that affects the business. I was put on some sort of "special projects" role in three fast-growing startups and those are always the first on the chopping block when things tighten up (and they almost always do at some point, especially in a startup).
The worst thing you can do is to feel personally and emotionally vested in the relationship, and then be disappointed that "despite" you going full in and giving everything, going above and beyond the expectations, it still affects you.
As the OP correctly states, the decisions are made by others, and they may not know you. But while some people involved may know and value you (e.g. your direct line manager), they will not stand up and fight for you in 99% of cases, because they don't have much power, and they would like to keep their own job.
But the line in the Excel sheet thing rings _incredibly_ true. It's actually surprisingly rare to be laid off by someone who knows you. Decision is nearly always made by people who've never met you and only have a cursory understanding of what your entire team does.
- 3 month severance, free money
- 1 year unemployment support, more free money
- fat tax return, since I falled into lower income bracket, even more free money
- moving out out expensive city to countryside, less expenses (and yes more money)
I took one year off, finished my opensource project and started consulting. Layoff tripled my disposable income and vastly improved quality of my life.
> to the company, I was just a row in an Excel sheet.
But then writes:
> [German] law enforces a social scoring system to determine who is affected, prioritizing the protection of the most vulnerable employees, such as those with children.
It sounds like under German law he had to be treated as a row in a spreadsheet. Cynically, it might have been wiser to spend time having a child rather than hustling for the company.
But yes, the first time you experience redundancies regardless of whether you're made redundant or survive is definitely an eye-opener. It's like those financial disclaimers "the value of your investment may go down as well as up". There may be very little warning. It may even happen at a time that's very bad for you personally. And it does break trust among the company.
In my experience, whenever a company assures you there will be no more layoffs, there will 100% be more layoffs. Never make the mistake of believing your employer has any real loyalty to you.
Often some functions are moved or merged into another unit, and that’s the escape hatch for the few people someone really wants to save.
But I've also learned that there is no security of any kind in life. People who've lived nothing but peaceful lives will never understand, and they'll even lecture you about "making your own luck," when they should be thanking God for their good fortune.
You hear this a lot but it's the result of developers from sectors that did well during this time period whistling past the graveyard as rolling layoffs hit more mature sectors and firms, such as networking (Cisco) and storage. It's surprising to me that people who are paid to try to imagine how systems perform in different scenarios, and are presumably good at what they are paid to do, fail to apply the same thought processes to the systems that provide them their salaries.
Isn’t it going to be incredibly obvious after a while, with all the random 1-2 hour OOO blocks during working hours, that something is off? Any seasoned manager will see right through it, but would never call it out directly to you.
Then, let’s say you get an offer, do you say you’ll only sign if you’re laid off? It’s expected you sign the offer and join reasonably soon. I’ve seen offers rescinded after ridiculous start date doubling down by candidates. You will be actively shooting yourself in the foot if you get an offer and don’t take it, because you just wasted many hours of their time, and they may remember that if you apply again…
Outside of all that… where do you even find the time to ALWAYS be interviewing?! I put (exactly) 100% into my current job, so always interviewing means I have much less free time. It guarantees I am always stressed, and being stressed ruins my life. I like the work I do, but find it incredibly exhausting and dehumanizing after long stretches. Five 8 hour days is enough of a long stretch to make me feel I am wasting my life, I can’t even imagine how always interviewing would ruin me…
The better advice in the same light is to always be networking— or at least making sure you HAVE a network. Referrals are your only weapon against the flood of trash applications.
So yes, yes, I get that I am a row in a database, came to terms with that a long time ago— this is the silly game we play for money. Until society collapses, and we miraculously reform it to something better, this silly game we will continue to play. I just want to scrape joy out of as much of that time as I can.
Working and interviewing remotely, it’s definitely easy to work and interview at the same time. No one thinks twice is occasionally it takes an hour to respond to a message.
Heck even when I am not interviewing I close my Slack and email for blocks at a time to do “deep work”
Somewhere around the mid 1990s, "layoff" became just a euphemism for permanent reductions in force/downsizing.
The way Shopify dealt with its staff departures was unacceptable. The lack of transparency and communication during this period not only eroded trust among employees but also created an atmosphere of fear and paranoia. The constant silent firings, combined with the CEO's outbursts during town halls, have severely damaged the company's reputation.
I've seen a similar situation play out in my own experience when new management was brought in. My team members were suddenly being threatened with being put on notice, leading to a nasty shift in morale and productivity.
It's worth noting that Shopify's actions aren't isolated to large corporations like themselves. Unfortunately, this type of cultural shift has become all too common in many industries and companies. Nonetheless, this specific incident left a lasting impact on me, and I actively discourage any who asks me about working at Shopify - something I haven't done for any other company I've left _or_ been let go from.
My view of why it happened is a bit different than the author, but my conclusion is wildly different. I've been on tech for almost 20 years, 11 of them in the US.
On average, I do see people that work hard and on important things getting recognized and promoted. I don't have this bleak view that nobody should do anything, it's all random, nothing matters.
I do agree at the end of the day we're just numbers on a spreadsheet for large companies. Most of the time it's not personal, and Shopify probably decided having engineers in Germany wasn't worth, no matter how good they were (and I personally knew a handful that were really, really good, live there, and lost their job).
Those things aren't contradictory. You can work hard and be promoted and get more recognition, and you still can be cut due to decisions completely out of your control. The opposite is also true. Average people get lucky to be on the right project at the right time, sometimes multiple projects in a row. Peter principle and all.
But on average, companies to reward the people that bring value to the company (and its owners)
IMO the biggest takeaway I had after a layoff: Always try to navigate your career so that you are doing something valuable to the business. You can tell based on a lot of clues whether you're in a position that's valuable or if you're forgettable. Moving "toward the money" not only helps job security but it helps your compensation too.
Say for example your team has a stretch of a few months without any new high priority requirements or requests. A young developer might think, "Yay, finally we have enough time to do all that refactoring in the backlog." But in reality, that situation should make you very concerned.
Which of them -- the original (and still on TFA), "Once You're Laid Off, You'll Never Be the Same Again", or the current one here, "A layoff fundamentally changed how I perceive work"?
(And YTH did it change to something else??? Weird.)
Yes. There are a few case (a handful across the world every decade) where a former employee has done bad things in retaliation. Yes extremely rare, but it happens.
* The smart and energetic I make field commanders. They know what to do and can rally the troops to do it.
* The smart and lazy I make generals. They also know what to do, but they’re not going to waste energy doing what doesn’t need to be done.
* The dumb and lazy I make foot soldiers.
The takeaway, is that only after you lose your shiny glasses are you ready to take on larger responsibilities.
Don’t become jaded. Don’t carry around resentment - just get on with it - and you’ll Very much be on your way to career advancement
The young employees believe it entirely because they have never known any different.
The more experienced become more realistic about the way the entire system works.
It would be good to do a study on how tech workers feel in an era of such commonplace betrayal and dehumanisation. If anyone has stories they want to share please get in touch at UK Cybershow and let's see if there's an episode in it.
For example, was it a small number of people who were laid off with decent severance, or was it a huge mass of people let go unceremoniously with minimum severance? And were the layoffs due to a sustained period of unprofitability or did they occur during periods of profitability? In the former case why wasn't the business doing well and has that fundamentally changed? In the latter case, did they first attempt to reallocate people to more productive areas?
> Everything I’ve shared reflects the current state of the tech industry. It might differ at very small companies, but once you work at a company with more than 100 employees, you’ll likely encounter many of the same patterns I’ve described.
Many tech companies have never needed to resort to layoffs -- not just small companies but medium-sized and/or privately held companies. Personally I consider layoffs of any sort to be a major red flag. It means company management makes poor business or organizational decisions and is willing to tank morale and lose their best people to please shareholders. It means that you're going to be a line in a spreadsheet that can be spun up and down as necessary.
Personally I'd steer clear, but if you choose to enter into a relationship with such a company you should appropriately discount any salary they offer to factor in that risk.
> For example, was it a small number of people who were laid off with decent severance, or was it a huge mass of people let go unceremoniously with minimum severance? And were the layoffs due to...
Fine idea in principle, but not implementable in practice: Prospective employees don't know who got laid off, and even if they did, they most likely don't personally know any of those people. So they have no way of finding out any of those useful things.
I landed a gig at another well known national newspaper and hated every second of that dysfunctional team. I did fully separate my personal life and my work life. I basically punched the clock and worked my 40. Every six weeks or so I had to pull an on-call shift, but the monitoring setup was almost nonexistent so it was cake. I spent just over three years there before they had a significant round of mass firings. However, I did not keep up with interviews and previous relationships made with recruiters during my last round of looking for a gig.
I came pretty close to flat broke in the four months it took to land another job as I had one kid moving to college and another out of school living at home. I'm still at this current gig, and I honestly couldn't care less about it. We are doing so cool stuff, but every Monday I clock in with the expectation of having a mass firing email when I log in. I have kept in contact with all recruiters that were helpful in this last round and I keep applying and interviewing for jobs. I am a terrible interview, but I'm amazed at how well I do when I am interviewing while having a current job. I'm also applying for a wider-range of jobs that I don't quite have the skill sets for and those interviews go well too.
If you are just starting out and think you landed the job you will retire from, I wish you well and hope that works out for you, seriously. It would also be a wise move to prepare for the unexpected by making relationships with recruiters and HR employees at other companies. Don't ever think you are not replaceable. After the first mass firing, our positions were posted to be filled only from Mexico. The second mass firing was to be filled by Brazil.
You owe no allegiance to the company you work for. Do they randomly gift you with extra weekly paychecks for 10 hours of work you did not do? Why gift them with 10 hours of work they don't pay you for?
This seems as exhausting as working more than 40 hours a week routinely. I would rather keep a financial reserve to cover the time to get a new job.
He didn't care about work. It was all about money. That worked for him short-term, but longer term Jack became a very VERY dull boy.
This is probably the most heartbreaking aspect of modern HR policy.
It’s not just about layoffs. It’s about the way the company incentivizes (or doesn’t) worker loyalty and enthusiasm. You could have employees that spend their entire career at a company, and refuse to ever “go the extra mile,” because there’s obviously no motivation to do so.
Loyalty, engagement, and morale usually comes from things other than paychecks. Often, simple, basic Respect can have huge impact on the motivation and loyalty of employees.
It’s actually quite mystifying [to me], how modern HR practice seems to actively discourage things like treating employees with Respect.
I worked for a company that was (at the time I joined them) quite well-known for employee retention. I think the average length of stay was about 25 years, when I joined. They didn’t pay especially well, so their corporate work environment was responsible for that retention.
As the years went on, I watched the HR Department become much colder, and more impersonal. They became absolutely obsessive about constantly reminding employees, at every possible opportunity, that we were simply replaceable cogs in the machine, and that the company could get rid of us, at a whim. They never really improved their compensation, and gradually removed many incentives, so it became all stick, and no carrot.
Performance evaluations became insulting and predictable exercises in humiliation. I was often told to reduce the encouragement in my evaluations (I was a manager, for many years). I used to take pride in specific and eloquent praise in my evaluations. My employees really appreciated that.
HR definitely wanted to make sure that employees felt insecure in their employment. It was obviously a deliberate and calculated policy. Our HR was run by the corporate General Counsel, so, lawyers set the tone.
By the time I left (as a result of a much-anticipated layoff), the employee morale was completely in the shitter, and the company’s much-vaunted employee retention statistic was no more.
Doesn't account for all the tacit knowledge and morale effects of course. Some people just like running the Hunger Games.
& a good corporate reputation is just another asset like a rainforest: something you can burn to top up profits this quarter.
At hiring time, they are willing to pay market rate (or some percentage of market rate) to get people in the door. Once you are employed, they don't care anymore and will let excellent people slowly fall behind market compensation with 1% to 2% raises.
When those employees get frustrated and leave for 20% bump in comp, the companies seem fine replacing them with a new hire at market rate. So now, they have a new employee making market rate, they have to train the new employee for months before they are productive and they've taken on the risk of an unknown vs. just giving the existing employee a raise to market rate. It doesn't make sense unless you want to telegraph the message that employees are fungible and you don't really care about people.
In a job market with more candidates than jobs, why would you need to an employee retention statistic? The reality is that in the current job market, regardless of your employment status or your work, your value has greatly diminished.
My whole view changed on work and tech companies in a second.
The job market as it is is tough.
Add autism & ADHD to the mix and it gets tougher.
I decided to give as much of a shit about the corporate world as it does to me - which is to say, I stopped searching altogether. I decided I'd rather be unemployed.
Something to hard? Give up. That's sure to get you hired
It's been my experience that accepting whatever dumb challenge management presents is how you get kept on. The advice that "your job is to make your manager look good to his manager" rings true to me. I would add that boosting your manager's ego goes pretty far, too. I find both activities detestable, but necessary in corporate life.
Always keep interviewing. One of the biggest mistakes I’ve seen is stopping interviews after starting a new job, trusting in the company.
I've never understood how people can muster the energy for this. I'm sure it's a great idea, but I would burn out immediately.
I think the only wise way to cope with that is maximize your output and minimize your input. If you are here not for experience or mission itself there is no point in undercutting yourself. You can't expect loyalty from a tool. You can expect common decency from a management but that's different story.
Don't become only cynical. It's just how it is. It's an opportunity for you to get more money and experience. From finance perspective it's usually a win.
Good luck! :)
ie annual cull rather than oh no financial results are weak.
Last round did spook me a bit too. Decided to up the emergency reserves as a result
"3. Lack of Vision from Leadership" comes in different flavors.
One scenario is exactly as described: leadership genuinely lacks vision, which inevitably leads to layoffs. Another, is when management is already aware of impending layoffs but cannot talk about it yet. While this may seem nefarious, it often has legal implications that restrict transparency. I've been in the difficult position to continue to manage teams while the companys closure was already known to management. Not allowed to inform people is one thing but trying to emotionally prepare them for whats coming is a different, so the drop may not be as high.
Forcefully reducing server costs by 50% and cutting of contractors is hardly considered a vision. 'A lack of vision' could be the actual message. By the time I knew what is going on and costs got reduced I encouraged the best kind of development within the team: CV-driven-development with vague sprint goals!
You want to make use of the new fancy LLM APIs and play around with it? Sure! Introducing a new tech stack? I can not think of a better idea!
While its far from an ideal scenario, its often better than wasting energy on dead features. My idea was to giving people the opportunity to work on something they find personally meaningful and is driven by self motivation. I hope it helped, at least after speaking to every one personally after the bomb dropped, no one was really surprised.
If you create metrics, they will be gamed. The people that succeed, then, are not necessarily those with the most merit, but those who are best at manipulating their metrics.
That's usually accompanied by some mealy mouthed communication from the CEO that "the decision rests with me" or some other poor faith mea culpa while you end up scrambling to get health cover for your wife and kids and figure it how far and severance will get you
I think this is a key observation. I of course cannot speak for every case, but in the couple of layoff rounds I've been witness to, for unrelated companies, layoffs are done without relation to individual skills or contribution.
Or rather: they may start with low performers, but these aren't enough, and then the next people that get axed are good performers (sometimes brilliant in my experience) for areas that the execs deemed not important enough for the company. Key words "not important enough", not unimportant. They are also done by people who don't know the team or its members, resulting in firing people who were later found to be essential, and their manager cannot speak for them because the manager was also laid off.
In the end, remember this when judging your "loyalty" to a company.
I also used to shake my fist at the bad outcomes of stupid decisions made by people above me.
It took me this long to realize that this is all a game of chance. Me choosing a company to work for is me playing the odds. The decisions my superiors make are bets, too. And sometimes, even good bets don't work out.
It's still worth it to work hard and deliver what your management wants in spades. I've been brought along to any number of new employment opportunities because I'm remembered well for being a person who did those things.
I've come to see my career as a series of stops, and my current stop is just what I'm doing right now.
My team of 12 was reduced by half in November. They told us that 6 would stay and 6 would go. I was told I was staying, and that my position was "unaffected", but I was also told that I was going to have an end date in either February or March, which to me sounds like my position is pretty well affected...
They have refused to give any of us an official end date, or discuss our severance terms in writing. Right now, I have been assured that my last day will be 2/28 and that I'll get 2 months if severance, but they could change their mind if they wanted to since they won't commit. I have voiced that this keeps me from effectively planning my next career move. What if I'm offered a job starting in March, and my current employer decides to they want to keep me until April? I'd be forced to choose between receiving a severance vs. accepting the new job.
All the while, they have us training our replacements in India, as if we have the motivation to do anything that benefits the company right now. Most of us are only cooperating at all because we want out in March and don't want to be dragged along for months while they try to keep the product afloat.
And the reason they aren't terminating our entire department and product is because they want to maintain the few million dollars in ARR they get from our customers, even though that ARR is 1/10,000 of the company's total revenue.
And they won't keep that ARR because they're getting rid of the entire customer success team and transferring the responsibility to a call center in India that is demanding to only work on India time (ending business hour product support entirely for our predominantly North American customers). They also have zero experience with the kind of product we make, and have no chance of successfully addressing the kind of work they're going to be expected to do for our customers.
All because the people who made these decisions have absolutely no clue what anyone in our org does. We really are just lines in an Excel sheet. We were a startup a few years ago that this much larger company purchased because they wanted to use our solution massively at scale inside of the company. Revenue wasn't even how we were supposed to be measured, and they're going to actively destroy the entire product that they spent so much time and energy implementing across the business.
For me, I ended up getting a much better job that paid 2x what I made at the bankrupt company. But the feelings of having your livelihood rug-pulled are really difficult.
- Raymond Reddington.
In reality it's a desperate shotgunning your org chart since you've apparently no better way to figure out what you need or don't. It's incredibly destabilizing and demotivating and creates a culture as seen in this post where you no longer have workers that feel aligned with the success of the company (because you're telling them they aren't). It should be reserved for absolutely existential moments in the company, not when you're seeing record profitability.
In every company I've worked for, everyone knew who the "little as possible" workers were. They were not respected by their coworkers. When people left to do startups, those people were not invited. When layoffs came to town, those people were the first to go.
If you're confident in your abilities, use the layoff as the kick in the butt needed to found your own startup. Invite the high performers at the previous workplace. (I've known people who did this, and would relate to me much later how the layoff was the best thing that happened to their career.)
In fact, the recommendation for those who are still employed is incomplete and therefore doubles down on the issue without realising it.
While everything in the article is true, that you shouldn't romanticise your job, focussing on the job description only, only ever working the amount required and making lean résumés will reaffirm the status quo and aggravate the situation long term.
It does this because it doubles down on what fractured the working landscape to begin with, which is individuality, competitiveness and alienation.
You can't treat an alienating job as if it was already the job you dream of. This is wishful thinking. But going full hostile to your job won't make your situation any better.
Here's what I suggest instead.
Do everything the article says if you identified your work environment in the descriptions in the article.
At the same time do a honest and deep evaluation of your values and what you aim to be in 5, 10 years time. Thinking long term will have first the effect of putting the immediate problems into perspective and will highlight what's missing in your career today in order to get the job you'd want for you.
Invest in your portfolio. Keep doing interviews. Don't compromise on deliverable quality, because if you go down the road of actively crippling your performance, you will eventually become the bad developer you are allowing yourself to be just to get back at the current company that doesn't value you.
Remember, you don't get a dream job and then you become the great developer you think you should be. It's unfair, but the reality is you first become the great professional you want to be and then you get the dream job you want, if you are lucky.
It's never guaranteed. It's always a game of probability. The only constant and the only thing you can control is you and your relationship with your work as an ever flowing, ever changing process.
I'm afraid we haven't hit rock bottom yet, they won't change until no one applies anymore.
Huge opportunity for companies willing to do the right thing!
This is why I've always enjoyed working at startups or being a consultant on my own. You have more risk, but you also reap the rewards of getting better.
I see this at large Canadian financial institutions, too, but for the opposite reasons - employees recognize that it's really difficult to fire people based on performance. It's so hard, in fact, that it's easier to talk them up and get them hired internally by another team and make it someone else's problem.
I don't think you need to be laid off to learn this, you can just OBSERVE reality and will find this to be true easily. I did and hopefully don't get to suffer what OP did but I know it's just one random event from happening.
I'd add another: don't trust future plans or promises. Get yours now or assume it won't happen because "circumstances changed" is a typical trick that's pulled on people.
This what happens when country policy and businesses are driven by awful neoliberal economic theory and neoclassical/orthodox economic policy.
For the past 40 years, we have seen:
- wage stagnation for labor
- decreasing worker protections (in tech, this means forced NDAs, arbitration, non-compete clauses)
- significant decreases in social safety nets
- increasing wage disparity across the board
- decrease in investment of labor and company and emphasis on stock —manipulation— buy back programs and layoffs for short term gains
- decreasing participation in labor unions and thus decrease in collective bargaining power for labor
- non-transparent pay grades across the industry
- rampant wage theft in the form of: “instead of paying overtime, give you a title, a salary, and expect you to push more than 40 hrs a week” (or do a job that usually requires 3-4 people)
- decreasing worker loyalty to companies
- increasing consolidation of power and money through monopolies and monopsonies
"Just be positive" about wasting almost 1/2 of your waking hours a week once the curtain drops doesn't sound like a very sustainable solution to life to me.
Or maybe it just hasn't been long enough since my burnout and layoff ;)
But I was doing some work for this startup ages ago and at some point out of the blue one of our full time contacts asked us if we've been paid because they haven't been. Must have been a lot less fun for them (I had other projects besides them) than for me. I only lost the pay for like 1/3 of a full time month.
I feel like this has a strange re-enforcing cycle that they find employers who are just like they are (looking to eek out every hour from their employees) and so they get more cynical.
>Always keep interviewing
Man that sounds like a full time job on its own...
Doesn't he/she know of people who have been laid off before, among their family/friends etc? Even reading anecdotes of layoffs on the internet will reveal that one ought not be too psychologically entrenched in one's job.
“Always keep your running shoes around your neck”.
After staying at my second job too long and becoming an “expert beginner” in 2008 and being stuck, I said “never again”
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39629190
1. I keep enough savings in a liquid account to pay my expenses between 9-12 months.
2. I keep my skills up to date.
3. Don’t be a “ticket taker”. This link I posted to HN describes my thoughts perfectly (It isn’t my blog)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42818169
4. Keep your network strong.
My first layoff was in 2011 when the company was sold for scraps and they let everyone go. We all knew it was coming. Management was up front with us about the difficulties the companies was facing and that kept us apprised of the companies that our investors were looking to for acquisitions. Our investors also promised us that we would get paid for every hour we worked.
Most of us stuck around to the bitter end, when the time came, they gave us our notice, we all went to lunch together and came back to the office and just joked around for awhile.
The CTO had a couple of recruiter friends reach out to us. From looking at LinkedIn, everyone got a better job within a month. Our major customer arranged for me to finish my work as a contractor for them after making an agreement with the acquirer to let me keep the code while working for the customer.
The second time was the year before last and it was Amazon. I commented here about four months after it happened.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37963988
I honestly didn’t think about the layoff three weeks after it happened. It was then my 8th job since 1996, I got my severance and moved on to my ninth job three weeks later.
The next job after that one ended up being mote shitty than I could imagine. I got laid off from there last year. I replied to an internal recruiter from my current company and again had a job three weeks later.
From what I have seen in the past, the set of people with children and a mortgage can be difficult. Some really do not want to be there, but stay for job security.
I'm also not entirely sold on prioritising those lay-offs based on social elements, such as children. I can see incentives being good to have more children in a society, but you shouldn't be punished for not having them. Ultimately from the company's perspective, you want to maximise your company's future success.
I would amend some points:
> Stick to your contract hours.
Do additional hours where required and you are able, but make sure they are visible, and compensate yourself them back. It increases your perceived value.
> Avoid going above and beyond with initiatives.
For your own sake, take pride in your work. Don't become stale.
> Always keep interviewing.
Many stop doing this because it's a pain and stressful. I think it is enough to keep your toes in, try to figure out what salaries are being offered, what kinds of jobs are available and how desirable you are. Try to learn those things with as minimal effort from yourself as possible.
You have a right to perform your prescribed duties, but you are not entitled to the fruits of your actions. Never consider yourself to be the cause of the results of your activities, nor be attached to inaction.
However I would encourage that the "don't give a shit about the company and colleagues" is not quite as simplistic.
Yes, fuck the company, they don't care. You should always assume this. But you _should_ care about your colleagues. They are your network, and greatest asset at the next company. If you are shit to them, they will not recommend you.
So my conclusions, and or advice to younger people is this:
o Learn what the business wants, it'll help you make better decisions/products, and often gives you fair warning about being laid off.
o Be suspicious of the company.
o if there a clash between business priorities and you, you will always come off worse.
o Go over and beyond for your colleagues, not your company.
o fight for your colleagues not the company
o your colleagues are your CV.
1. You cannot build strong skills working just contract hours. 2. You cannot market your achievements by working only 40 hours. And in turn this makes you dispensable and more disposable. 3. You can't control your work which is probably the most important element of all this. 4. you can't search for great positions with the new skills you achieved if you only work 40 hours ...
Work in such a way that you get recognition for the hours worked.
Do important projects, not crappy side projects and MARKET THE HELL out of your work. Everyone should know what you are doing.
Every day at a job is a campaign to increase your salary massively - either at the job or somewhere else. (Btw, this is how most people in NYC think thought they may not admit it.)
You have to do impressive things and then use 3x your time marketing them to everyone else in the company. Everything else - money and promotions will follow. (Process won't be pretty - but you won't be floundering nearly as much as others who don't take this advice.)
Seems like the author has only been through an up cycle
They hired a bunch of people who took the money for granted, and at some point that's no longer going to sustain itself
You can, however, be loyal to your boss, and your boss can be loyal to you, as long as this does not conflicts with his duties to the company.
After that, I held onto, in fact, excelled at every job and was often one of the top software engineers wherever I worked. I also launched some popular open source projects since then. I experienced some success in crypto (after facing a lot of adversity). I led significant improvements in the crypto project I worked on and things were looking up, the blockchain became highly stable and supported some unique features which would allow it to scale and meet its original vision; but after a couple of years, founders decided they wanted to go in a different direction which I did not agree with and so I had to quit. I made such an impact on that project that I managed to earn income from it for about 3 years after quitting the company; the biggest crypto voting cartel in that ecosystem broke up and re-formed just to include me as a member. Then after 3 years of horrible decisions, the founders essentially ran the project into the ground (no surprise to me); they did such a bad job that they then had to migrate their token to a competitor's platform. I lost my passive income... Though I must have earned like 200K EUR from it over the years. Best years of my life; no job, earning passive income while working voluntarily on open source project I cared about. I was not beholden to anyone and had no responsibilities besides just keeping my node running.
After that, I had to go back to working 9-to-5 doing the most tedious jobs, for lower pay. I was forced to accept work for a company in the mainstream finance sector which was the antithesis of everything I knew and believed in, literally going to work every day believing 100% that I was making the world a worse place. I struggled to find motivation; I did my best to hide it but I got fired after almost 1 year (coincidentally, just a few months before my shares would vest). Talent cannot make up for lack of enthusiasm it turns out... It was an unsettling experience hearing the CTO tell me how smart I was and that I won't have trouble finding other work... while firing me... Like 2 weeks after giving me access to their Stripe control panel where I could see all company finances! At that point, I had full access to everything, all user data, all services, all infrastructure. They'd literally put me in a position of ultimate trust, before pulling the rug from under me. I left in a very classy manner and on decent terms, as I always did before. In retrospect, the whole experience working there was very strange.
Anyway it's been a struggle to find motivation since then. I don't take my career too seriously now; having seen both the lows and the highs and seeing how talent and determination doesn't doesn't actually make a difference in the face of political machinations (which are pervasive in the industry). I don't think I would even care much if I got fired again. I'm now more political myself; I do the bare minimum. In effect, I've become like the people I used to hate, but I don't hate them anymore because I now understand why they might have been that way.
Why not work less?
Better advice. Be who you are. Work for and with people you like. Do what interests you where you are valued. You will spend a lot of time at work. Try to make sure it feels good.
The opposite is true.
First, I don't have need unemployment insurance. You are my unemployment insurance. I am hedging against your mistakes, as well as mine.
Second, I assess the situation to the best of my abilities, but also: How I see fit. As an employee, on the other hand, not being able to decide might as well feel like getting struck by lightning. (Here I would only add that as an employer it also feels like that if people fire you — as in: they quit — for any reason. It's just that you get more chances to practice it.)
Reconsidering the supposed safety aspect of an employment (since it's such a sticky idea) is certainly one thing I hope we would do. Unfortunately, when trying to discuss the issue with employees (not necessarily those who work for me), they mostly seem to rather not want to think about it.
Other thoughts. Why I run a company: It's certainly not money. I would even argue I (and most people I know running SMBs) relatively care a lot less about job money than the average employee does. I do it because would hate to work on something I think is bad and where attention is not spent, where it should be (so exactly what a lot of employees complain about in their company).
Best I can tell, a good reason to work for a company is getting to work on stuff that excited you and that you could not do better on your own. But I think more people should consider doing their own things more often! I would welcome more meta-competition in organizing work in a better way.
Points of disagreement with the post:
- People will miss things and systems fail, but I can't think of any reason why a CEO would not want to be able to spot the people who a) are not assholes and b) gel really well with the company. I don't want anyone to work overtime for me, but the above will still hold true. A company is complicated, and you being a considerate human being makes everything so much better.
- Yes, Excel is how you work with numbers, also those pertaining to human beings. That's just the responsible way to organize information about things. But if you think that robs me of my ability to think about or care for human beings, I am mostly confused. Can you not think of humans when you write code, because it's digital characters on a screen? Still, it's of note that even highly analytical people find something dehumanizing in that, when it pertains to themselves.
That said - having seen how layoffs are organized from the inside (multiple times), I can _guarantee_ that the list of suggestions on this post ("Suggestions for Those Who Haven’t Been Laid Off (Yet)" - particularly the first 2 points) are the best way to get included on the layoff sheet, in almost any organization. They might be good ideas for mental health reasons, but definitely an easy "name on the list" if you're perceived as "just doing the minimum" (I know that doesn't sound fair, but that's how boards think).
If you want to be mediocre and/or don't care to get promoted sure?
If you were on such good terms with VP of Eng and C-levels, why didn't you reach out to them and ask what's going on? They could interfere and prevent your layoff.
When they laid off the other team that was working in our office (on an entirely different product), they of course assured us that we were safe - they believed in our product, yadda yadda.
Then at some point, things started getting weird - a job position was cancelled right before we were going to offer the candidate the job. A trip to HQ was cancelled last minute. An external team was getting increasingly involved.
About a year after the other team had been fired, the second highest ranking executive was visiting our office, something he would do once in a while. When the visit was announced, we were joking that "if he brings Pattie from HR, they'll lay us off". I got the message from my coworker on my way to work: "Pattie is here."
The speech the executive gave us was the stupidest thing I've ever heard somebody say to me. He literally said: "In a couple of years, you will look at this as a big opportunity." We just rolled our eyes at each other. When he left the room, we picked up the remotes and started playing stickman against each other. It was the only thing that seemed appropriate.
We had a very nice office and so we were looking forward to be able to spend our notice period together, playing video games, making music and doing the bare minimum in terms of handover duties. Unfortunately, covid happened at right that time and our time together was dramatically cut short, which I still consider a tragedy.
One woman in our team was pregnant and fought the settlement they were offering us. As far as I know, they had to keep her on for longer and she eventually negotiated a better deal - pregnant people are especially protected under German labour law.
To this day, some in my former team doubt that what they did was really all that legal and think we should have fought back, because it later turned out that they lied to us about a bunch of things. But I doubt it would have been really worth it. They just wanted us out.
Broken trust, indeed.
No promises of lifetime employment. I’m focused on the long-term health of the company, and our needs will inevitably change. If we continue to grow, it’s almost guaranteed that not everyone will be the right fit at every stage.
No expectation of loyalty. The flip side is that we aim to attract ambitious, hungry people, which means we need to provide real opportunities for career advancement. If we can’t, I understand you’ll move on.
If we let someone go after a single bad quarter, that’s on us for being shortsighted. We know people have ups and downs, and we don’t want to be overly sentimental, but we also don’t want to act rashly. On the other hand, if someone’s job-hopping every year, that’s usually a sign of short-term thinking. From 2014–2021, job-hopping didn’t matter much. Now, it’s becoming clear that those signals are important again.
At the end of the day, it’s not about judgment—no good/bad or right/wrong here (aside from obvious dealbreakers like dishonesty). It’s just adults making tradeoffs.
That said, I’ve seen how some companies shy away from being upfront about this, which leads to cynicism. We’ve had moments like that too—at some point, we started calling ourselves “a family.” I shut that down fast. It wasn’t popular, but it helped clarify our stance. You know what you’re signing up for with us.
6) Senior management is mysteriously missing and impossible to get ahold of. (They're not allowed to say anything to anyone.)
Usually those just above the layoff line will have a fun time inheriting the work of those below the line.
I think layoffs at my employer have been imminent for 5 years...
To everyone reading the comments that describe corporations as the ones who treat their employees with contempt, it's sadly a two way street. It comes down to shitty people polluting expectations at all levels of society, and people dialing back their expectations accordingly.
With all the Luigi talk in the air, it's important to remember this goes for insurance companies as well. Insurance fraud is a huge drain on the industry and it's folks of all levels of wealth committing it. It's a part of the reason why insurers squeeze harder to keep the profits flowing. That's obviously no excuse for delay/deny/depose tactics--I'm just saying that in an environment of fraudsters who add friction to a company that does business honestly, you will find that the cheaters and bad actors will bubble to the top, more so than usual.
I'm sure that the author who is capable of writing such a post is also capable of reading other post/articles of people who have had layoffs in the past, and hence none of anything that happened should be a surprise for him.
So my guess is that he has written it for the clicks.
And that is exactly how corporate America works. Shareholder value before everything. The billionaire keep the stock price up not for the value, but for their simple greed. F** you and your self-worth.
RIF. Reduction in force. Spend every end of week, on the clock making three envelopes: your resume, an envelope which says 'blame everything on the previous guy' and the last envelope? 'make three envelopes'
I'm in the US.
I'm mid career, entered the job market 22 years ago, and have another ~22 years before I retire.
Layoffs were very common in the 1990s when I was teenager. In the US, if you think layoffs are a "new thing," you're very naive. (Remember, the author is from Germany.)
One thing I did very early in my career was learn enough about business to know that businesses, markets, and products don't last forever. Most don't even last a whole career. Sticking in a job long enough to get laid off with a severance is a good thing: You don't get money when you leave a job voluntarily.
(Granted, there are good reasons to leave before the layoff, but keep in mind that if you loose out on a severance, you've left money on the table, especially if you can get a job before the severance runs out.)
TL;DR it won't make you feel better but you're not a row in a spreadsheet; you're a fungible generic resource.
<For all but the smallest organizations>
At a certain level and/or for specific events, executive leadership is playing checkers not chess. You see this in overall staffing, budgets and lay-offs. Your executive is tasked with very excel-like tasks, such as "cut n people" or "trim your budget xx%". They then get political and attack specific initiatives or teams, or peanut-butter it across everyone. By definition they need to work at a generic level to "scale". When it gets to selecting the actual people, it's either done by the people who DO know individuals but you might not have credibility and a good reputation (or worse, they actively target you), or at an even less related metric, like a calc that provides the perception of "fairness" (true story: I saw HR try and calc how much "experience" we could get for each dollar of salary). IME only if it's a very small layoff (~ < 10-15%) and selected by the front-line manager do you see the high performers saved, and it's still political.
Context: I report to the CTO but still have lots of direct interaction with ICs. I struggle to meld these worlds at the intersection almost daily. I've been involved it doing the lay-offs at two companies.
Aside: there are TWO failures in doing what is the incredibly unpleasant job of laying people off:
1. Everyone knows you only get one lay-off before it's all over. After the second round nothing gets done. You almost always hear "this is the only round" and I believe leadership actually believes this, there's just know way they can know for sure.
2. Botching the order of operations. You need to get your sh!t in order and not do stuff like send out the laptop return courier before the announcement, or cause extra panic and confusion with timing and poor messaging. Ignorance, Incompetence or Schadenfreude; I have no sympathy for less than perfect behaviour and execution here.
I need mutual respect. I want to believe in whatever the company is doing and enjoy my work there. At the same time, I want the company to respect my personal time and further my career growth. This enables me to give my best effort. I have no delusions about the workforce - I am a cog in the machine as we all are, but I will at least be a well greased cog.
When it's all said and done, I would like to leave a company feeling good about my time spent there, and if I am happy with how I am treated and the work I do from the start to the end, then however it ends, I feel good about it.
I had the incredible luck of starting my career as the first hire and thus lead developer right out of college. The startup which hired me eventually ran out of steam, but the experience I got is priceless.
Now big corporations on the other hand are a shit show, and from what I can tell have always been a shit show. Have laid me off 3 times. And none of it has affected me much. Always quickly found another good position, and that's with being absolutely terrible at live coding challenges.
I'd say try to find work you're interested in. If you can, also try to keep your commute as short as possible. And live in a place you like.
And good luck.
1. Post Dot-com bubble dev naivete: most Post Dot-com devs (ie those who joined the work force sometime after the bubble burst) have only known the summer of tech (ML flourishing, everyone can code movements, nonsensical startups raising ridiculous amounts of money, companies hiring devs they don't need to keep competitors from having and BigHead kind of devs able to keep a job). These are the devs that used to go to r/cscareerquestions and tell everyone that they should get everyone to learn to code and program, the kind that believed in chasing aggressive salary growth at any cost. True summertime devs who have known nothing but joy and love in the tech world. These are the devs who OD'ed on the tech corpo koolaid
2. The super-meritocracy fallacy: following from point 1, these devs believed in the increasingly rare concept of promotion-only growth, the idea that if you worked really hard, your salary and your job title willl eventually reflect your hard work. While this is somewhat true, the extent to which your hard work is actually compensated seems to be overrated by most devs. This a rather peculiar thing as you would expect most devs to be data driven and to actually research whether this is true in general for most companies. Any veteran knows that career progression and salary increase by promotion has a very early point of diminished returns hence the job-hopping
3. The existential meaning of a job: this is another peculiar aspect of devs given that they see themselves as rational. An employeement relationship is a business relationship (like a partnership) where continuous work is exchanged for money. Yet these devs seem to have somehow assume some kind of existential meaning to this transactional relationship the terms of which they should have known. Placing the meaning of your life in a transaction is clearly misguided and it shouldn't take a layoff for someone to realise that. Yet here we are
4. The Saviour Dev Hero myth: this also follows from point 1. Devs being marketed as corpo heros is just that marketing. The supply and demand ratio is not a fixed thing. It changes. Devs were never going to be in demand forever. Business needs change. No one is irreplaceable. No matter how good. There is always someone good enough that will work for a similar salary (or less). During the summer of tech, the demand was higher than the supply so layoffs were rare. But summers don't last forever.
Ultimately, the lesson that devs, for all their self-described higher intellect and rationality, never seem to learn is that the goal of all companies is to increase their profits, everything else is secondary. Other goals exist only to help that. Layoffs while declaring record breaking profits is not surprising. Given the job market, new hires could be acquired at a lower salary and perhaps not as many are needed. As an employee, you are there to help increase profits and the company owes you a salary. This implied idea that efforts should be rewarded even when it makes no business sense, that the company should provide an existential meaning to your work or that it should always need you even when it makes no business sense is in my opinion delusional and a by-product of Post-Dot bubble conditions that no longer exist.
The market has changed (and it will change again) and all agents within must do so as well.
Maybe we should start calling this the "enshttification" of work? As capitalism is enshttifying everything, it was unimaginable that work would not get affected...
It woke me up from a dream I was in. I believed if you worked hard and provided great value to a startup you would be valued and have a place.
After five years at the company (as employee #1), I was laid off. I realized my mindset was delusional and I swore to never work for anyone ever again.
Several years later, the founder that laid me off asked if I wanted to co-found a new company he was creating. I sorta felt vindicated then :)
insert godfather meme
This is so discriminatory, I don't even know where to start. Also, employees with children are more likely to need urgent time off, and have more stringent time constraints than the ones who don't.
These aren't actually that rare.
>> Stick to your contract hours. If your contract says 40 hours, work 40 hours—no more, no less. Protect your personal time and well-being.
100% agree, a company is (almost) never going to say "that's enough, you shouldn't work so much". They will say they only want you to work XX hours but they aren't going to chide you for going over.
>> Avoid going above and beyond with initiatives. Many companies encourage impactful work to earn promotions, but instead of chasing internal advancements, focus on switching companies to achieve your next career step.
Ehh, I mean don't kill yourself for a company that doesn't care but the idea of jumping companies every few years is not appealing. You might make more money but I kind of doubt you'll be happier, to each their own.
>> Always keep interviewing. One of the biggest mistakes I’ve seen is stopping interviews after starting a new job, trusting in the company. Instead, continuously explore opportunities so that if a layoff happens, you already have other options lined up.
Gross. Interviewing sucks and the idea of trying to onboard at a new company while interviewing sounds horrible.
>> Leverage external offers for salary growth. Companies often resist giving substantial raises to existing employees but pay top dollar for new hires. Regularly interview elsewhere, and if you get an offer with a 20% or higher salary increase, consider taking it. Many people have seen their compensation triple or quadruple this way in just a few years.
You can do this 1, maybe 2 times at a company before you paint a target on your back. This will work in the short term but not in the long term (At a single company)
>> Don’t overthink your résumé. Worrying about short experiences on your CV isn’t worth it. You can always tailor your résumé—leave out brief roles, or consolidate short-term jobs as freelance experience. Ultimately, your résumé is just a starting point; your skills will be assessed during the interview process.
Completely agree, your resume is not your record, it's not "official", you tailor to the job you want. Leave off technologies you don't want to work with, leave off jobs that aren't the type of thing you want to do, etc.
I thought it was a given.
It's a waste that so many individual contributors who, as the author said, had good performance and were close to the users went through a laid off. Now a new generation of previously high achievers work force will get back in the market and no longer use all their potential for their job. Like it wasn't the fault of the new company that hired me, that now I do the bare minimum, they won't see the full potential I gave before. And I, I cannot prevent it. My work ethics and motivation died after the lay off.
OP sounds very bitter and - frankly - melodramatic. Getting laid off is terrible, but this person makes it sounds like they'll never heal/never be the same/all companies suck/etc. when none of those things are true. There is an implied business relationship with an employer that can end anytime, and that's expected because it's a two-way street.
I agree with the top commenter - seanc - when he says:
> Carrying around bitterness and cynicism is just bad for you. Pride in good work and pleasure in having an impact on customers and coworkers is good for you. Sometimes that means making dumb business decisions like sacrificing an evening to a company that doesn't care, but IMO that sort of thing is worth it now and then.
Finally, income diversification pays huge dividends. I had a startup job where suddenly I found myself with a $65k/year pay cut one week. I had side work from folks who were asking me for more anyways so I quit that same week on Friday. Now I employ 10 people and pull in nearly a million a year. Really makes the emotional part of having lost income that week completely meaningless in the long run.
>the law enforces a social scoring system to determine who is affected, prioritizing the protection of the most vulnerable employees
This is the reason OP got laid off, if all he says about his high performance is true. The good old positive discrimination making unintended victims. Germany just lost a 10x dev's productivity for this.
While I agree with the spirit of the law and don't have the details of this case, it is quite the sad situation for everyone involved.