91–100 of 310 posts
This really depends on the percentage of the workforce your laying off. A small %2-%6 one is really getting rid of people you don't want, but it's too much of a pain in the ass to do the entire PIP & political process to do so, or they're toxic / unproductive but well positioned that firing them is hard. A streamlined 'just pick people' layoff process helps with all of those issues. The bottom %5 percentile people th…
> instead of laying off 10% of their workforce, they had everybody take a 10% wage cut except for senior management, which took a larger cut. So instead of giving 100% of the pain to 10% of the people, they give 100% of the people 10% of the pain. This doesn't seem like a good strategy for tech. Cutting everyone's salary will dislodge your top performers who can get a better position even in poor market conditions.
> Cutting everyone's salary will dislodge your top performers who can get a better position even in poor market conditions. Will it? Are your top performers only there because of the pay? And how do you even determine who your top performers are? I see this sort of logic frequently and I don't even know how to measure it, much less believe it.
I love this point: "The tech industry layoffs are basically an instance of social contagion, in which companies imitate what others are doing." I really wish for a less supine tech press. I've not seen any of these titans of industry being held accountable for the apparent major mistakes of overhiring. And I'm not even talking actual consequences here; these people will surely get bonuses for this. I'd just like to s…
Do we have any evidence that the over-hiring was a mistake? Could companies not have seen the free money and decided to beef up their staff for short term gains in their roadmap, with the knowledge and intention that they will likely be cutting later while getting to keep all that intellectual output? I don't see why we put this past them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Cutting everyone's salary will dislodge your top performers who can get a better position even in poor market conditions. Will it? Are your top performers only there because of the pay? And how do you even determine who your top performers are? I see this sort of logic frequently and I don't even know how to measure it, much less believe it.
> Are your top performers only there because of the pay In an ideal work environment, probably less so than other employees. But I think anyone who has their salary reduced is going to reevaluate their position, and those with more valuable skills are more likely to leave. The question is, what is more likely to cause a serious reevaluation, salary reductions or layoffs? I think for most tech companies, a single roun…
Either way you'll probably be thinking about interviewing, with a bit less urgency if you get to keep your job.
The professor recommends across the board pay cuts as an alternative to layoffs. > One thing that Lincoln Electric, which is a famous manufacturer of arc welding equipment, did well is instead of laying off 10% of their workforce, they had everybody take a 10% wage cut except for senior management, which took a larger cut. So instead of giving 100% of the pain to 10% of the people, they give 100% of the people 10% of…
I think the problem with this strategy is that it causes the wrong people to leave. If you're a top performer, you're going to feel like a 10% pay cut is very unfair, and you're going to be able to get another job elsewhere fairly easily, even in this environment. If you're not performing particularly well, it probably doesn't feel as unreasonable, and even if you don't like it, it's tough to leave. When done correct…
Have you been in a layoff? Not having a job anymore is not the only form of punishment.
I maintain it’s not even the most painful. Being a survivor can suck mightily.
Not all of it is "copycat". During the pandemic consumer spending moved online. People purchased hardware to work from home, ordered more from Amazon and other online stores as opposed to physical stores, used online services such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams more. Tech companies responded to the increased demand by increasing the pace of hiring. Were they wrong to do so? Possibly, because they should have expected th…
Staff turnover in most companies is more than 15%. The same staff reduction could have been achieved by implementing a hiring freeze, moving people to strategic projects and putting underperforming staff on a performance management plan. However, as layoffs are now normal, it can be done without looking weak.
The professor recommends across the board pay cuts as an alternative to layoffs. > One thing that Lincoln Electric, which is a famous manufacturer of arc welding equipment, did well is instead of laying off 10% of their workforce, they had everybody take a 10% wage cut except for senior management, which took a larger cut. So instead of giving 100% of the pain to 10% of the people, they give 100% of the people 10% of…
I think the problem with this strategy is that it causes the wrong people to leave. If you're a top performer, you're going to feel like a 10% pay cut is very unfair, and you're going to be able to get another job elsewhere fairly easily, even in this environment. If you're not performing particularly well, it probably doesn't feel as unreasonable, and even if you don't like it, it's tough to leave. When done correct…
If you have options there’s no good reason to stay.
I love this point: "The tech industry layoffs are basically an instance of social contagion, in which companies imitate what others are doing." I really wish for a less supine tech press. I've not seen any of these titans of industry being held accountable for the apparent major mistakes of overhiring. And I'm not even talking actual consequences here; these people will surely get bonuses for this. I'd just like to s…
Do we have any evidence that the over-hiring was a mistake? Could companies not have seen the free money and decided to beef up their staff for short term gains in their roadmap, with the knowledge and intention that they will likely be cutting later while getting to keep all that intellectual output? I don't see why we put this past them.
The professor recommends across the board pay cuts as an alternative to layoffs. > One thing that Lincoln Electric, which is a famous manufacturer of arc welding equipment, did well is instead of laying off 10% of their workforce, they had everybody take a 10% wage cut except for senior management, which took a larger cut. So instead of giving 100% of the pain to 10% of the people, they give 100% of the people 10% of…
Not all of it is "copycat". During the pandemic consumer spending moved online. People purchased hardware to work from home, ordered more from Amazon and other online stores as opposed to physical stores, used online services such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams more. Tech companies responded to the increased demand by increasing the pace of hiring. Were they wrong to do so? Possibly, because they should have expected th…
> During the pandemic consumer spending moved online. I keep hearing this repeated as canon but is this quantified somehow? Did we really see a spike long enough for hiring sprees? And did it last until ... when? A few months ago? It seems intuitive but I'd really love to see numbers.
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/recode/2023/1/19/23562702/a...