Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter announces layoffs

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 410 posts

Re: Twitter announces layoffs

#281

Post by Geekette »

Apocryphon wrote: post #265
Geekette wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A (what-if-the-news-broke-via-Twitter) translation: Fam, Shit got real, gotta drop, 336 deep. Mainly ingenieros. Don't get shook, all drops get $. Keep keeping on. Questions? Holla @ur boy. -J

Needs hashtags for full authenticity

True, but there wasn't any room left. But we know in real life, that would have been taken care of within the next tweet to rally the troops. That would probably be the most retweeted tweet of all time, based on all the fellow HQ Tweeps hoping not to be dropped next:

Keep ya heads up and Eyes on the prize fam. Stay woke & drop a RT/fave so I know its real. #TweepsGoDeep #GottaGoLeanToRegulate

Re: Twitter announces layoffs

#282

Post by nsxwolf »

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #224

> Emails like this are usually riddled with corporate speak so I'm going to give it to you straight. [...] > we plan to part ways with up to 336 people from across the company Nothing says "give it to you straight" like using "part ways" to mean "you no longer have a job".

It's better than "rightsizing".

Re: Twitter announces layoffs

#284

Post by meatysnapper »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #190
diego wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quality engineers and dead weight are not exclusive. Great people who are burnt out and unmotivated become dead weight to a company. When planning layoffs, it's normal to put people who are checked out, coasting, and/or clearly planning their next move at the top of the list. That doesn't mean they are not high quality professionals.

I'm always surprised people can never seem to see these things coming. If I was working there, I would've started looking two or three months ago. Maybe they had some stock options or something they were holding onto??

Since the stealth layoffs last year at the same time, Twitter has been bleeding engineers left and right. The writing has been on the wall since August 2014.

Of the people I knew well when I worked there, the more talented ambitious has been gone for 6 months already.

Re: Twitter announces layoffs

#285

Post by crpatino »

leothekim wrote: post #114

"up to 336" -- that's a very specific number, suggesting this was somewhat surgical. Most other leadership types are of the "any manager worth her salt should be able to cut 10% of her staff, so do it". Layoffs are never easy, but it sounds like Jack is doing his best make the right cuts and take care of affected.

> any manager worth her salt should be able to cut 10% of her staff, so do it.

And that's how every manager worth their salt learns to keep a bunch of dead weight around, so they will in due time be able to offer a victim to the dragon without a significant impact to her team.

That's why these draconian methods end up enticing the very behaviors they are meant to prevent. You treat people like... not even animals, like inanimate objects, and they will start to behave like inanimate objects themselves with all the implications. That 3rd Law of Newton is such a lovely thing.

Re: Twitter announces layoffs

#286

Post by metamet »

rudolf0 wrote: post #169
adevine wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While they may be jargon, they're not meaningless. I mean, roadmap? Is there anyone who has worked at a tech company that doesn't know what a roadmap is, and why it's important? Is there anyone who doesn't know that nimbler means better able to react to changes in the marketplace?

They're jargon as well as buzzwords. They mean things, but they're unnecessary. "Roadmap" -> plan, strategy "Structural change" -> internal reorganizing, lay-offs "Nimbler" -> fewer employees, which we hope will make us become more agile "Streamlined" -> ambiguous and essentially meaningless by itself "Impactful" -> revenue- and/or growth-generating, maybe "important"

Isn't "agile" more buzzwordy than "nimbler"?

Re: Twitter announces layoffs

#287

Post by ljk »

celticninja wrote: post #37

> The world needs a strong Twitter Really? Does it? I think Twitter needs a strong Twitter, shareholders need a strong Twitter even Twitter employees need it. However the world is, at best, ambivalent about Twitter, if it disappeared tomorrow a replacement would spring up within a few weeks if the world really needed a way to shotgun their messages into the ether.

It's funny how accurate Silicon Valley(HBO show) is - https://vimeo.com/98720197

Everyone wants to make the world a better place

Re: Twitter announces layoffs

#288

Post by hitekker »

coldpie wrote: post #270
hitekker wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone should take note of this person's excellent structure: he put the decision first. If you are writing a decisive message that can greatly impact many people's lives: write the decision first. Don't "sandwich" the truth. Sandwiching only makes sense when the decision or the mistake is not of huge significance. Beating around the bush in matters of great import will always harm the sincerity of your words. Afte…

Legitimately asking: Do you have any evidence that this achieves certain goals better than how this email was phrased? Are you sure those goals are the same as those of the author of this email?

You're right that the CEO's goals may not be the idealistic goals I'm thinking of. The goals I had in mind were: be honest with your employees about something terrible and show them, don't tell them, that you valued their service to the company.

Judging by the contents of this email: the goal might be to confound or confuse counter-arguments to the decision, limit the damage PR-wise (and stock wise), and above all, insulate the new executive staff from a groundswell of anger/hatred from the bottom.

My instincts as a writer, and maybe a bit as a human being, is that you shouldn't try to fool the people who support you. If the author of the email (probably not Dorsey) was a stronger writer, and perhaps free of some pressures, I'd like to think he or she could have both been fair to those under him or her, and also protected from their wrath.

I too would be very interested in seeing historical examples of leaders forced to write messages explaining tough decisions. Would you happen to have any?

Post reply on HN