> Once a company grows beyond a certain threshold of employees, then the probability of having hired saboteurs increases.
But is the layoff really the first time having these employees was dangerous? If you can't trust your staff (and sometimes you can't) then don't you need policies even in good times that prevent them from doing dangerous stuff solo? E.g. the number of people who can drop your production users table should be tiny, merges to the main branch require a review+approval from someone other than the author, viewing PII data is logged etc etc.
> This is where social safety nets could play an important role in incentivizing folks to not worry, thus reducing the likelihood that they attempt to sabotage a company on their way out.
I don't think the social safety net is sufficient incentive. I think the components that create alignment are:
- severance is equiv to multiple months of _total_ compensation, such that people who are let go have a good shot at ending up ahead financially by getting a new job faster than that. For this reason, they're not necessarily even that upset.
- all employees, whether departing or retained should be _given_ some additional chunk of equity, possibly with some restriction which prevents them from selling for k months? Extending the exercise window is not enough, if some people have options which are underwater for that full period. Everyone then still has a material reason to want the company to do well. Retained employees who are likely asked to do more work do not feel that the departing employees got a better deal.