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

Why is every layoff 10-15%?

blog.eladgil.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 263 posts

Re: Why is every layoff 10-15%?

#101

Post by quelltext »

Kibae wrote: post #14
jasonhansel wrote: post #5

I think Scott Adams figured this out in 2005: https://dilbert.com/strip/2005-06-11

This reminds me of a story I heard about Steve Wozniak's time at HP: They were going to lay off 10% of the staff, but instead they decided to reduce everyone's pay by 10% and give them an extra day off every two weeks.

Yeah, let's ignore the extra day but why isn't anybody doing that today instead of the 10-15% layoffs?

I guess the fear seems to be that it will lead to uncontrolled attrition of good people. But I would assume hiring freezes in the industry would still prevent this. Also, you will retain the truly "loyal" employees that are willing to suffer a bit for future growth.

It also addresses the wasteful folks in a fair way. I've definitely observed shifts in company cultures of new hires not being attached to the overall mission, demanding more and more benefits (e.g. business class flights) without "giving back" in equal amounts by working hard.

Re: Why is every layoff 10-15%?

#102

Post by [deleted] »

phkx wrote: post #78

> One venture firm I know is encouraging companies to assume they should cut 50% and then use financial modeling to prove otherwise. Is there any common tooling to do that kind of financial modeling other than spreadsheets?

[deleted]

Re: Why is every layoff 10-15%?

#103

Post by jjav »

bbreier wrote: post #13

> Remote work > Anticipate more mid-size and smaller companies will go back more fully into the office as times get tougher. This will not be one size fits all, but will be an increasing trend. Up to this point in the article, whether you agree or disagree with the points, the author offers some arguments and reasoning supporting each. Here, they simply assert that small and mid-size companies will go into the office…

> Won't many small and mid-size companies have come up under covid and not have an office lease in the liabilities column?

There are way more small and medium sized companies which are older than 3 years.

Re: Why is every layoff 10-15%?

#104

Post by summerlight »

Usually 10~15% are considered as "for redundancy". If you go further than that, you will likely lose continuity on your core business. The risk is just too much to take. Unless there's a good evidence that the business can sustain with 50% or whatever numbers, it'd better be safe.

It might true that some companies are extremely bloated and their competitors may be demonstrating a similar level of productivity with 30%~50% of people but different companies have different history and contexts; path dependency is the thing. For that level of productivity loss, the root problem is more likely deeply ingrained in the structure (especially management and decision making) so cutting more and more people usually won't help.

Re: Why is every layoff 10-15%?

#105

Post by jjav »

georgemcbay wrote: post #94
Clent wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many or a few? Most software engineers find themselves most effective in work from home. This breaks in favor at 3:4 or higher. The software engineers that want to work in office are the odd-balls. I am interested in the break down when one factors in whatever concept of '10x developers' -- which do the most productive of us prefer?

For me it would be more of a toss-up if software engineers generally actually worked in real individual "offices" (like we used to, as a 49 year old I still remember the before-times). But when compared to the modern nearly-universal open office plan... yeah there's no doubt I'd much rather work from home as often as possible, and based on my experience in both environments I'll be far more productive doing the job f…

> But when compared to the modern nearly-universal open office plan...

Indeed. Give me a proper office with a door, like I had for the first 18 years of my career, and I'll happily go to the office every day.

But open office? Nope, nope, nope. Work from home or nothing.

Re: Why is every layoff 10-15%?

#106

Post by jjav »

jmt_ wrote: post #79
Clent wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many or a few? Most software engineers find themselves most effective in work from home. This breaks in favor at 3:4 or higher. The software engineers that want to work in office are the odd-balls. I am interested in the break down when one factors in whatever concept of '10x developers' -- which do the most productive of us prefer?

I just want to be able to choose which I want on a day-by-day basis. Some days I am much more productive in the office because I need to, say, communicate with a bunch of people or there's some sort of back and forth that needs to occur. Or I just need to get out of the house for a bit. Other days, I just want to stay home and spend the time focusing on something in particular without being bothered. But I need both…

> Some days I am much more productive in the office because I need to, say, communicate with a bunch of people

But on that day all of those people might've chosen to work from home so you sit all alone in the office.

The hybrid solution only really works well if the office days are the same for everyone.

Re: Why is every layoff 10-15%?

#107

Post by ajmurmann »

sour-taste wrote: post #68
anotherrandom wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think this? I haven't observed any advantages to an office beyond overexposing the company to real estate (not really an advantage) - there is nothing I could do in person that I haven't been able to do faster in MS Teams (and better - now I have a written record and recording of everything). Another advantage of remote is that nobody ruins my train of thought by tapping me on the shoulder and asking s…

I think the reality is some people do better remote, some better in office. There's no one size fits all solution. I hated my time working from home, but it sounds like you enjoy it. There's no perfect solution for companies here except to cater to individual preferences, or mandate one at the risk of angering some employees

There is one an individual might find works better for them. Another tractor is cost add employee market. I have a much bigger talent pool to choose from when hiring remote and I can recruite from much cheaper locations.

Of course teams work better in person. So many factors that impact that though.

Re: Why is every layoff 10-15%?

#108

Post by jjav »

pcurve wrote: post #61
bbreier wrote: post #13

> Remote work > Anticipate more mid-size and smaller companies will go back more fully into the office as times get tougher. This will not be one size fits all, but will be an increasing trend. Up to this point in the article, whether you agree or disagree with the points, the author offers some arguments and reasoning supporting each. Here, they simply assert that small and mid-size companies will go into the office…

What happens to people who were hired as fully remote during pandemic?

At least at Twitter, sounds like they are in trouble.

Re: Why is every layoff 10-15%?

#109

Post by lettergram »

summerlight wrote: post #104

Usually 10~15% are considered as "for redundancy". If you go further than that, you will likely lose continuity on your core business. The risk is just too much to take. Unless there's a good evidence that the business can sustain with 50% or whatever numbers, it'd better be safe. It might true that some companies are extremely bloated and their competitors may be demonstrating a similar level of productivity with 30…

More than 15% often means a change in the business model.

Re: Why is every layoff 10-15%?

#110

Post by quelltext »

bruce511 wrote: post #88
SamReidHughes wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowing its financials, I would feel more "safe" after a 50% cut than a 25% cut. But why would we want employees to feel safe? They should feel like they need to produce value, or they'll get cut.

You're being down-voted (not by me) because your point is both cynical, and common as a caricature of management. Employees need to feel safe because that improves their ability to focus on the job at hand. Employees that do not feel safe spend time updating their resume, playing office-politics games to make others look worse, spend time with other employees (detracting them) to either spread rumours or get gossip.…

That sounds like a great employer.

I only have anecdotal data but from recent discussions with friends who got laid off, they all lost trust in their company's leadership and losing arbitrary team mates has made them unhappy and reduced morale. I don't know if it's something special this time but if great teammates you worked with since before the pandemic are cut off while ones joining after and never having achieved or released anything remained (paraphrasing) does that. These layoffs seem haphazard.

Post reply on HN