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

Digg Cuts 10% of Staff

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 46 posts

Re: Digg Cuts 10% of Staff

#11

Post by latch »

ericb wrote: post #6

It's been my experience that, if a company has not had recent layoffs, there is almost always a bottom 10% that is bad enough to be worth cutting. This has been most noticeable to me at companies of 100+. I've always wondered if smaller periodic layoffs would work better than waiting for a downturn to make hard decisions, which seems like the norm.

For very large companies with hundreds of projects, figuring out the "bottom 10%" can be challenging. An average developer on a poor team will look like a rockstar to his/her manager, while a really good developer on a stellar teams will look average at best.

Re: Digg Cuts 10% of Staff

#12

Post by matwood »

jfager wrote: post #9
rosshudgens wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would become a morale nightmare if employees were ever aware this was taking place, unfortunately. Pretty hard to pull off with consistency/as a standard because of this.

Jack Welch strongly advocates for this approach, and it's how GE operated when he was CEO (I don't know if they still do or not). NetFlix also does something similar. Why do you think it would be a morale nightmare? If you're doing well at your job, wouldn't you take comfort in knowing the person down the line who isn't pulling his weight will be cut out of the company at some point? High expectations are motivating.

Well you could be pushing people to only be about themselves and their team and not the company as a whole. Why would I want to work with and help another team if it means I may move them above the 10% line and me below?

So while you're right that it would push people to do their job well it could also push them to submarine others.

Re: Digg Cuts 10% of Staff

#13

Post by latch »

rwmj wrote: post #3

They have 72 staff? Doing what??

Once you get past a certain # of core staff (programmers and a few designers), you start to have overhead. Its almost unavoidable.

HR, legal, finance, PR, business dev, management, senior management, QA, tech support

Re: Digg Cuts 10% of Staff

#15

Post by rosshudgens »

jfager wrote: post #9
rosshudgens wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would become a morale nightmare if employees were ever aware this was taking place, unfortunately. Pretty hard to pull off with consistency/as a standard because of this.

Jack Welch strongly advocates for this approach, and it's how GE operated when he was CEO (I don't know if they still do or not). NetFlix also does something similar. Why do you think it would be a morale nightmare? If you're doing well at your job, wouldn't you take comfort in knowing the person down the line who isn't pulling his weight will be cut out of the company at some point? High expectations are motivating.

It wouldn't be a morale nightmare for me, but for those people who aren't as motivated and are just sitting at the poverty line in terms of their progression in the workplace, knowing about stuff like this can loom over their head and create a plague of gossip and backtalk in the workplace.

Re: Digg Cuts 10% of Staff

#16

Post by strlen »

rosshudgens wrote: post #8
ericb wrote: post #6

It's been my experience that, if a company has not had recent layoffs, there is almost always a bottom 10% that is bad enough to be worth cutting. This has been most noticeable to me at companies of 100+. I've always wondered if smaller periodic layoffs would work better than waiting for a downturn to make hard decisions, which seems like the norm.

This would become a morale nightmare if employees were ever aware this was taking place, unfortunately. Pretty hard to pull off with consistency/as a standard because of this.

If I recall correctly, Netflix does this: cutting n percent of the workforce on a yearly basis ("adequate performance gets you a generous severance package").

It's countered by paying above market salaries and ensuring that these salaries _remain as such_ (even going to the point of where employees aren't discouraged from interviewing elsewhere to "sample the market").

Microsoft, I believe, does something similar. Whether it's the right approach is another matter.

Post reply on HN