481–490 of 801 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An experienced manager would know that is how the game is played and act accordingly. Don't get emotionally attached to any work relationships. It's transactional, keep that in mind.
This mentality is why people don’t get promoted internally, which leads to the job hoping in the first place. Fix this and a lot of the job hoping problem goes away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a pretty weird and heartless thing to say. Having children is not a vice that deserves to be judged anymore than not having kids is. I could enumerate why fewer kids is bad for our collective future as a whole, but I won't, because the decision to have kids is a personal choice. Also, having kids is generally not the difference between having to work or not—most people have to work for a living regardless of f…
You can view what I wrote whatever way you want, but I stand by it and don't think it was heartless at all. I think not having children is actually more heartful and caring than having children. Look, out of all the people who come into this world, how many people can we say were a net positive for this planet? I see that you are currently at Airbnb. Great. You are lining your pockets, but I'm not sure what the net b…
But you responded to a thread where someone was expressing the considerations they have about why being laid off is personally scary to them. Using that to grind your axe about whichever of their life choices you find morally dubious is the heartless part.
It's not really surprising though since your first reaction to my comment was to look at my profile and cherry-pick something to condemn me with.
Had been advocating slower hiring & targeted reductions in a mid-sized tech firm for years after COVID, but it happened much faster under a newly appointed CEO. Under new leadership, we executed 1/3 layoffs framed as a "culture refresh" and to briefly lift the stock. It wasn't about survival, we had plenty of cash, okayish growth and fantastic ARR - more about a new corp-backed CEO adopting a "do-it-like-Elon" approa…
There’s weirdly (to intuitive sense and business zeitgeist since the 80s or so) mixed data on layoffs in general. There’s a decent chance they cause more mid-term harm than good, most of the time . They also didn’t used to be a regular feature of business. It’s funny how such things become “ordinary” and “obviously good things to do sometimes” that haven’t always been the former, and may not really be the latter eith…
A lot of what happens in the boardroom or C-suite is "stick with the crowd" — e.g. template-based "tech modernization." (That's often a new CTO's hedge if the real problems are too hard. Just "go Cloud" or "go AI" for five years — four vests, one to jump off.) You broadcast confidence, you own the narrative. Which means never, ever saying "I don't know."
This is especially common in PE "turnarounds" or post-IPOs after founder exits. And it's especially harmful there because current staff is often seen as a liability, not an asset.
I thought a lot about this after the layoffs, and I think it boils down to how "professional C-levels" see execution as a commodity. They tend to overemphasize leadership (sometimes self-serving, but often genuine) and resource availability. The focus is on "what?" and "how to pay for it?" — with "how?" left to be figured out on the go.
I don't think that's completely wrong. Sometimes execution is a commodity. But not when you're short on time and planning for a rapid sprint.
This is a terrible opinion piece. Layoffs do work. Cutting hours does not work. I am always amazed how few people understand how a business operates. They think its a community organized event where there is unlimited revenue. There are a few basic accounting principles employees need to understand. It all revolves around Assets = Liabilities + Owner’s Equity. If you think otherwise, take a "Cost Accounting" course.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Google tenure stat is misleading because it was taken at a time when the company was growing 20% per year. The actual statistic worth looking at was how long a person who is leaving had been with the company on average at the time of leaving or what percentage of the overall headcount leaves per year. While I don't feel comfortable sharing those numbers, I can confidently say they lower than the industry norm.
The industry norm is incredibly short tenures, and often when it starts increasing, it's paradoxically when the company is on the track towards complacency and eventual failure. https://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/why-googles-high-turnover-rat... This isn't some Google specific thing. The cargo cult "look at our super exhaustive, endlessly demanding hiring process" is a farce everywhere . It's actually a bit paradoxical b…
I’ve worked in places where people stuck around for years because they believed in the company and technology and wanted to successfully ship a product. In fact, I still view repeated 18-month stints as a bit of a red flag.
It’s a big industry. There’s a difference between a norm and something that a sizable subset of people do.
This is a terrible opinion piece. Layoffs do work. Cutting hours does not work. I am always amazed how few people understand how a business operates. They think its a community organized event where there is unlimited revenue. There are a few basic accounting principles employees need to understand. It all revolves around Assets = Liabilities + Owner’s Equity. If you think otherwise, take a "Cost Accounting" course.…
> If a company is bleeding revenue Not what happened with some of the recent layoffs. Some big tech companies generate huge revenues, laid off 5-10% of people (sometimes with false pretext of performance), and do keep hiring at the same time or soon after. This happens not to reduce cost but to stress out remaining employees.
Or to cull the low performers.
I personally am less stressed when the competition I outperform gets fired.
The layoffs are not the issue. It is the decision makers who took the two decisions to both over-hire and then mass-fire shortly after. GM is a great example. The company was the largest and one of the most innovative car manufacturers in the world. It doesn't stand a chance against BYD today and it is not by a lack of money (though maybe with a C-suite change). So my opinion is, yes, the damage is done (or being don…
> one of the most innovative car manufacturers in the world Off topic, but I'd like some more specific thoughts regarding what you are aware of for specific automotive technologies that GM has innovated over the past decades, to make this statement. Intuitively, GM cars do not do well internationally, have been known to have creaky interior build quality, have silly features like turning the reverse lights on when yo…
Traditionally, GM sold other models overseas through brands like Holden or Opel, but these have all been sold off or shut down over the past decade or so except in China. GM now has a much heavier reliance on trucks and SUVs in the North American market. They sell some of those same product overseas still, but in much smaller quantities than before.
A couple weeks ago Google announced more layoffs in their HR and cloud divisions. They have $100 billion cash on hand, literally more than any other tech company, and much more in longer term investments. In round numbers, that's enough money to cover roughly 10,000 employees for 25 to 50 years (depending on how much you think the salary averages out to). Regardless, the CFO said one of her priorities this year was m…
A large airline like southwest is one thing but I’m always so surprised at how much over hiring we do in software companies. Every problem/opportunity seems to just need a few more headcount. Lots of managers are actively trying to increase their headcount for self promotional reasons. The whole thing seems really counterproductive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have connections from previous jobs who will vouch for them.
How does this work, though? Every company I've worked for has an HR system, and resumes flow through it, and there's a set process. If I have worked with a candidate in the past and highly recommend them, all I can do is submit their resume into the great void and check a box "Recommend". I don't have any other power. There is no "Skip the interview, I vouch for him!" button that I can push.
I haven't worked for any massive companies with thousands of employees where there might be a lot of bureaucracy, but the few I've worked for ranged from ~100-700 and it was pretty easy to get interviews for referrals. One of my employers encouraged referrals and offered bonuses if it led to a hire.