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

Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 251 posts

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#61

Post by _delirium »

nness wrote: post #20
tphan wrote: post #10

I knew Microsoft was on the way out but I didn't know the situation was so bad. Hopefully those who lost their jobs will find a place at Google or Apple.

Layoffs are fairly regular occurrences, and don't necessarily represent the end of a company. In fact, even if it wasn't just 5% of their workforce, and not mostly Nokia staff, it wouldn't be a concern — its just business as usual. Companies often experience a raise in share-price after a layoff.

It's true this doesn't represent the end of a company. But layoffs of 1/20 of a large company's entire workforce are not regular occurrences, and are a cause for concern. It's the kind of thing you can do once, but not again for a long while; two layoffs of that magnitude within a short period, and you trigger a death-spiral where anyone who's left is looking for the exit.

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#62

Post by lgleason »

TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #18

Any company that has been around for as long as Microsoft, has a huge amount of dead weight in its mid-level management. I mean people whose main skill is mastery of the internal political process. Lest people think I'm singling out Microsoft specifically, this same problem is present at Google as well, but is less of a problem because Google has not been around long enough to pick up the same amount of dead weight p…

I was at a company once that had layoffs where the company said that they were going to lay off managers. An old timer succinctly summed up how it would go as follows........

You have a tree full of monkeys. So you shake the hell out of the tree to get the monkeys out of hit. How many monkeys do you have in the tree after your done? The same number, they are just in different branches.

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#63

Post by yawaramin »

Well, I have to say after reading the Monday Note piece decoding Satya Nadella's public email to the employees: http://www.mondaynote.com/2014/07/13/microsofts-new-ceo-need...

... This doesn't come as much of a surprise. His main message seemed to be 'Shape up or ship out.'

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#64

Post by walterbell »

sopooneo wrote: post #58
TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #18

Any company that has been around for as long as Microsoft, has a huge amount of dead weight in its mid-level management. I mean people whose main skill is mastery of the internal political process. Lest people think I'm singling out Microsoft specifically, this same problem is present at Google as well, but is less of a problem because Google has not been around long enough to pick up the same amount of dead weight p…

I have begun wondering lately if the reasons for the inevitable death of living things has any anologue to the dynamics you describe here for corporations.

Yes, organization development literature is sorely lacking in research and discussion of immortality.

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#65

Post by cpeterso »

walterbell wrote: post #64
sopooneo wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have begun wondering lately if the reasons for the inevitable death of living things has any anologue to the dynamics you describe here for corporations.

Yes, organization development literature is sorely lacking in research and discussion of immortality.

I'm not sure if your joking, but there is research into managing a business' longevity, such as the book "Built to Last":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Built_to_Last:_Successful_Habi...

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#66

Post by marincounty »

adventured wrote: post #55
TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #18

Any company that has been around for as long as Microsoft, has a huge amount of dead weight in its mid-level management. I mean people whose main skill is mastery of the internal political process. Lest people think I'm singling out Microsoft specifically, this same problem is present at Google as well, but is less of a problem because Google has not been around long enough to pick up the same amount of dead weight p…

Facebook does indeed have a very efficient corporate structure (whether that will last is another question). Perhaps 7,000 to 7,300 employees (assuming some pickup the last quarter or two), and $8.9 billion in sales. Microsoft by comparison had roughly 15,000 employees when they had that level of revenue (adjusting for inflation), circa 1993 / 1994.

I still think about FB spending 3 billion on that app?

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#67

Post by lotsofpulp »

sopooneo wrote: post #59
mikeyouse wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To provide a counterpoint: Enron collapsed under massive fraud and GE would have been bankrupt if they had to mark-to-market their debt during the financial crisis.

What does it mean that they would have been bankrupt? I thought (wrongly perhaps) that you were only bankrupt if you couldn't pay your bills. So no matter their true debt back then, doesn't GE's current existence prove they weren't bankrupt?

I think what mickeyouse means is that if the taxpayers didn't step in to subsidize all the financial institutions, then GE would have bee bankrupt (just like most other financial institutions).

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#68

Post by cpeterso »

JibberMeTimbers wrote: post #47
kabdib wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the last layoffs, many of the people who were let go were back working for Microsoft again in a year or so (often as full-time employees, more often as contractors). I believe that Microsoft has more contractors than it does employees. That is just crazy. Also, it's nearly impossible to fire even the most grossly incompetent people. One person I worked with was a utter flatline and doing negative work (very bad Q/…

Contractors can be cheaper than employees, despite paying a higher salary. The reason is that they don't need to do so much legal work or pay their insurances and etc, etc. When a project is finished, they can just end the contract and avoid all of the legality. I've known many people that leave their job as employee and get contracted to the same company for those reasons (and more).

And contractors don't get stock options. Microsoft has gotten in trouble before about their use of "permanent contractors".

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#69

Post by walterbell »

jarsin wrote: post #53
liveoneggs wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and who selects the ones to fire? The ass-kissers of course.

Exactly. Every layoff i have seen personally or through close friends at other company's the ass kissers survive and those t hat threaten them get laid off. Those that threaten them (the competent ones) are always painted as non team players because generally the competent ones are unhappy when the teams gain so many slick talking ass kissers but few doers.

Competent people need to know the political basics, it's like defensive driving.

http://www.manager-tools.com/2013/04/politics-101-chapter-3-...

http://www.manager-tools.com/2013/05/politics-101-chapter-3-...

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#70

Post by andyjdavis »

asdfologist wrote: post #46
ekianjo wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Microsoft has been picking up useless deadbeats for nigh on 25 years now. They really need to shed these people. Isn't the key reason for these layoffs the recent acquisition of Nokia operations ? If that is, the layoff is just about eliminating redundancy post acquisition, and not addressing the deadweight problem.

Or, the redundancy argument could be used to justify laying off dead weight.

Certainly lay offs due to post acquisition redundancy would seem less likely to generate lawsuits compared to lay offs due to dead weight regardless of the true reason.
Post reply on HN