Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft • Hacker News Board

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#131

Post by r00fus » Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 5:58 AM UTC

mikeyouse wrote: post #75

sopooneo wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If your assets are worth less than your liabilities, you're technically insolvent. If you can still pay your bills from cashflows, you don't need to claim bankruptcy, but on a long enough timeline without a significant change, you will go bankrupt. There was a long stretch of time post-GFC where this was the case with GE. Banks have to 'mark-to-market' their debt periodically, but since GE wasn't a bank, they didn't…

Also to note: our megabanks would also likely be forced into restructuring (it's probably a bad idea for a bank to go bankrupt) if they also had to "mark to market" with the same strictness as before.

Instead of restructuring, the Fed and FASB decided to blow more bubbles in 2009:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fasb-approves-more-mark-mar...

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#132

Post by kamaal » Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 6:00 AM UTC

greendestiny wrote: post #101

bkjelden wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone currently with the company, this description of some mid-level management really resonates with me. I am incredibly skeptical, however, that any round of layoffs attempting to get rid of these people will have a good hit rate. Plenty of really talented engineers and engineering managers will end up losing their jobs too. I a lot of my older peers from university went to work for IBM for a couple years righ…

When whom to layoff is a political decision, layoffs will just compound the problem.

That always happens. The problem is the CEO needs an internal partner to get a list of people who need to be let go. And that's generally delegated to the immediate exec staff, they delegate to some layers below and when the list is built, it bubbles up back to the CEO.

In the process, most people think performance is the key to decide who stays and who leaves. While the fact is first ones to go are political enemies, followed by people who pose threat to the middle management(Kind of people who managers think will eventually take their job, if they stay) these kind of people are worst sufferers, because they would have performed well only to be perceived as threats. Next come people who don't fit well in the organization's pay parity. The last one's if they ever go are weak people who can be sacrificed to save manager's yes men and manger's inner circle.

What generally remains are people who are yes men, political alliances and generally people and partners needed to keep political cartels running.

Which is why if a company is laying off people, its generally an indication they will perform worse in the time to come. Because a round of good people have been laid off, many good ones are leaving. And worst stay on, and are more entrenched in the new set up.

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#133

Post by kevin_thibedeau » Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 6:01 AM UTC

neutronman wrote: post #125

Spooky23 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've heard, if you're not working on cloud services, you're a dinosaur. They just let go of XP and cloud services are making the need to support office version X for 10 years less relevant. MS must spend a ridiculous amount of time & treasure supporting old crap.

They sold Windows 3.1 until the year 2008. I would agree that they spend way too many resources on the past. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.1x

They still sell embedded DOS. Supporting legacy products is good customer service. It's not like they were spending tons of resources to maintain the code.

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#134

Post by tn13 » Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 6:01 AM UTC

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…

Rules of layoff - Keep the indispensable people in terms of work. - Keep the people who are on good terms with you (the top management). - Keep people who sleep with you (the top management). - Keep people with whom you play poker. - Fire everyone who will create no fuss for firing.

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#135

Post by eru » Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 6:03 AM UTC

tdicola wrote: post #124

peterjancelis wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I believe in a Semco type culture where every team member receives a cut of the profits and there is a peer review process of who gets to join / stay in the team. It's the most realistic way a profitably franchise can avoid taking in the political rent seekers. What you spend more on profit share you probably make back on cost savings, and at the very least it buys you a more happy, productive workforce.

Microsoft is a publically traded company, they have a fiduciary responsibility to return their profits to shareholders and not employees, for better or worse.

Banks share profits all the time. Microsoft does not have to maximize the share of profits returned, but the absolute value.

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#136

Post by Fizzer » Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 6:10 AM UTC

pyre wrote: post #56

CMCDragonkai wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what Enron did and General Electric under Jack Welch. Up or out strategy. If you put the incentive under delivering something of value too much, you end up with people lying. Sometimes it's not just about star individuals, but star teams.

> Up or out strategy I think that 'up or out' is slightly different than 'deliver something of tangible value.' It's possible to keep delivering value without wanting to be promoted into (e.g.) management.

I think the companies with the "up or out" policy also offer career paths that doesn't lead to management. It's viewed as acceptable to keep getting promoted within an individual-contributor role. They've tried to remove any reason to not be promoted.

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#137

Post by gnopgnip » Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 6:11 AM UTC

poof131 wrote: post #34

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…

The military is especially prone to this problem. I’d hesitate to refer to people as dead weight, but the retirement structure encourages mid-level management to hang-on for twenty. Even if people are burnt out after 10 years, which the military is very capable of doing, many stay even when they and the Service would be better off if they moved on.

The military has the up or out program. It varies depending on the branch, but if you don't get promoted past e5 by ten years you get separated. Generally if you get to e6 you will do 15+ and get retirement benefits.

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#138

Post by rimantas » Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 6:19 AM UTC

walterbell wrote: post #108

peterjancelis wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I believe in a Semco type culture where every team member receives a cut of the profits and there is a peer review process of who gets to join / stay in the team. It's the most realistic way a profitably franchise can avoid taking in the political rent seekers. What you spend more on profit share you probably make back on cost savings, and at the very least it buys you a more happy, productive workforce.

Would you recommend a reference on Semco's approach?

The books by Ricardo Semler? "Maveric" and the "The Seven Day Weekend". Both worth reading, imho. Even if you won't be able to apply the same principles they can serve as a good eye-opener for the many things we take for granted.

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#139

Post by tdicola » Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 6:26 AM UTC

AlyssaRowan wrote: post #118

chc wrote: post #6

I wonder how much of Nokia is going to get rejected. A friend of mine is a former Nokia employee who was really psyched to be working on the Surface team now — that would be pretty rough if that team got laid off just after getting settled into the company.

They bought Nokia's mobile division for patents, not personnel.

No, Microsoft didn't get the patents in the sale: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/03/us-nokia-microsoft... They only have a license to the patents, not the ability to use them to go after other companies. IMHO they bought Nokia because it was on the verge of collapsing and taking Windows Phone down with it. Whether it really mattered is up for debate considering WP's now shrinking market share.

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#140

Post by cesarbs » Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 6:26 AM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #97

microarchitect wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the #1 reason why I won't stay in the US after my phd. I have no interest in being a random CEO whim away from either having to uproot my life and move back home or frantically try to land a new job all in the short period of 15 days. For those curious the #2 reason is that H1Bs make it hard to do even simple extracurricular activities like writing books or do consulting on the side related to an open source…

Well, what if you are in another country working for a company (say Microsoft) on a visa, even though you are American. > The H1B is fundamentally broken and I'm amazed that so many people put up with it. Credit to the US for being such a desirable destination, I guess. There are plenty of countries with more broken visa policies (I've lived here for almost 8 years and still don't qualify for permanent residency).

Where is "here"? :)