> from a Snap survivor: ”So it’s frustrating; they expect us to still go out and win with these products, yet we have fewer resources.” I don’t know what function this is it their manager is telling them, but this quote really reflects a bull market mentality that success is a function of resources applied without acknowledging the inefficiency of throwing money at a problem. People who want to be successful over the…
Amen. I work at a small shop, 3.5 devs. That presents limits to some extent. And yet we were faster and more flexible than a company who had wads of cash thrown at them by some parent company who is now shutting them down.
Meet Silicon Valley’s rattled layoff ‘survivors’
41–50 of 74 posts
Re: Meet Silicon Valley’s rattled layoff ‘survivors’
#42I've met, lately, a really massive number of people who work in tech companies but say they work in "marketing" or "branding." I'm not really sure what they do exactly, but I think it's to do with the amount of money in the ad tech business that drives profit for the likes of G, FB, etc. I guess decisions have to be made on product strategy, I suppose meetings with clients to discuss ad spend. Question is doesn't tha…
And yes, marketing/ad budgets will likely get cut across all sectors (some more than others) during a recession. It's one line item among many that companies will flex up or down depending on macroeconomic conditions, as well as the position/health of their individual firm.
Re: Meet Silicon Valley’s rattled layoff ‘survivors’
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm still getting recruiter emails from many of the recent companies that have publicly said they are freezing/slowing down hiring I wonder what a recruiter at a company with a hiring freeze in place is expected to do? I'd be inclined to say, "well then I'll be on vacation until you need me, thanks for keeping the paychecks coming", but I suspect that wouldn't work so well. I think they would want to "keep the pipe…
In my experience "hiring freeze" at a large company usually means "hiring freeze, but... " Exceptions can and will be made, but need higher level approvals. The problem at these companies is that managers just want to infinitely expand their teams, because more people in your chain of command = more important manager, so they tend to use all of their budget regardless of whether they actually need to expand staff by…
Re: Meet Silicon Valley’s rattled layoff ‘survivors’
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amen. I work at a small shop, 3.5 devs. That presents limits to some extent. And yet we were faster and more flexible than a company who had wads of cash thrown at them by some parent company who is now shutting them down.
Ah yes the 0.5 dev, conjured up by the manager to push 4 devs work onto 3 realistic devs
Re: Meet Silicon Valley’s rattled layoff ‘survivors’
#45> from a Snap survivor: ”So it’s frustrating; they expect us to still go out and win with these products, yet we have fewer resources.” I don’t know what function this is it their manager is telling them, but this quote really reflects a bull market mentality that success is a function of resources applied without acknowledging the inefficiency of throwing money at a problem. People who want to be successful over the…
I think your statement may be a bit broad here. Let’s say upper management considers they need both feature A and B to win the market by end of quarter. But suddenly your team is half the number of people it used to be. You’re not realistically going to achieve more than you used to just through sheer elasticity. So either A or B will get done and it becomes a matter of prioritization. Smaller companies and shops are…
Re: Meet Silicon Valley’s rattled layoff ‘survivors’
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best people leave first, triggering the death spiral.
Just to add a bit, the better ones will know the layoffs or downturn is happening and jump ship well before it happens.
Re: Meet Silicon Valley’s rattled layoff ‘survivors’
#47> from a Snap survivor: ”So it’s frustrating; they expect us to still go out and win with these products, yet we have fewer resources.” I don’t know what function this is it their manager is telling them, but this quote really reflects a bull market mentality that success is a function of resources applied without acknowledging the inefficiency of throwing money at a problem. People who want to be successful over the…
I'm an engineering manager at $BigCo. In my past life, I was a startup founder, so I'm no stranger to doing more with less. As a startup founder, the way I achieved efficiencies was a.) work on the right problems, or as close to the right problems as you can with the information available to you b.) don't do unnecessary work c.) look for efficiencies where the same piece of work can achieve multiple aims and d.) cut communication costs & overhead whenever possible.
At $BigCo, I generally have a set amount of work that my team has to deliver. I can provide input on priorities & goals, but if I, say, redirect product strategy into an approach that gets more users or offers a better user experience, the PM gets the credit, not me. (If they didn't, it's doubtful they would let me.). If I started a brand-new product that's beloved by users, it'll get killed by some executive that's threatened by its success. If I say "Let's not do X, it's not very important", and X is something that's been asked of my team by either execs or another team, I'm branded as uncooperative and will probably be managed out. Same if I cut communication loops and just do things without letting people know. OTOH, if I do lots of unnecessary work that is asked for by other people, and gussy it up so it seems more difficult than it actually is, all of my people get promoted and I look like a rising superstar.
I think this is the organizational variant of Gall's Law. ["A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. The inverse proposition also appears to be true: A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be made to work. You have to start over, beginning with a working simple system."]. Once a company has evolved processes and structure and an org chart, it cannot be made more efficient, because the inefficiency is coded into the structure of the organization. You have to throw away the company and start with a new, simpler company that does the same thing.
Re: Meet Silicon Valley’s rattled layoff ‘survivors’
#48> The situation is bad enough that the Snap employee said they’d considered quitting since then. So, only bad enough that an employee might consider quitting? That... really suggests it's not a particularly bad situation.
Re: Meet Silicon Valley’s rattled layoff ‘survivors’
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amen. I work at a small shop, 3.5 devs. That presents limits to some extent. And yet we were faster and more flexible than a company who had wads of cash thrown at them by some parent company who is now shutting them down.
Ah yes the 0.5 dev, conjured up by the manager to push 4 devs work onto 3 realistic devs
Re: Meet Silicon Valley’s rattled layoff ‘survivors’
#50> from a Snap survivor: ”So it’s frustrating; they expect us to still go out and win with these products, yet we have fewer resources.” I don’t know what function this is it their manager is telling them, but this quote really reflects a bull market mentality that success is a function of resources applied without acknowledging the inefficiency of throwing money at a problem. People who want to be successful over the…
Big companies have a tendency to hire new people rather than to consider moving people that they have and trust already around because it's easier. Managers derive status from their team size and are protective of keeping their team members, especially the ones that get things done. This dynamic results in a lot of negative behavior and this weird dynamic of people being treated like generic resources that are literally hoarded. You get this ego driven empire building where the loudest managers get the biggest teams and the largest budgets.
This results in a lot of people ending up in the wrong place for the wrong reasons. And the resulting problems are fixed by hiring more people. If the company is big enough, you get teams literally engineering around other teams. And then inevitably after a few years somebody realizes that they have too many people and they start firing people. This actually makes the problem worse because the best people won't wait for that to happen and leave by themselves and of the ones that remain some get fired and the remaining people are probably demoralized.