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

151–160 of 263 posts

Re: Why is every layoff 10-15%?

#151

Post by theshrike79 »

jjav wrote: post #106
jmt_ wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We have a weekly slack poll every Friday for office days the next week. Works pretty well.

We used to have so that every Thursday was "come to the office if you can" -day, but switched to the poll system.

Re: Why is every layoff 10-15%?

#152

Post by ilyt »

quelltext wrote: post #101
Kibae wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, it would result in exactly that, best people leaving

> 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.

The best are near-immune to that. It's the average worker that will have problems finding next job, not the best one.

> Also, you will retain the truly "loyal" employees that are willing to suffer a bit for future growth.

That doesn't mean productivity

> 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.

It's a job for money, not charity, and you're competing with other companies. New hire have no reason to be attached to the company either. It's fine to like where you work, but people don't live with their work.

They have family and hobbies, that's why they work, to fund that, not to "have a mission", in job where someone on top is earning way more than what they put in effort.

Re: Why is every layoff 10-15%?

#153

Post by ilyt »

pcurve wrote: post #66
29athrowaway wrote: post #58

No, the reason is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitality_curve > The vitality model of former General Electric chairman and CEO Jack Welch has been described as a "20-70-10" system. The "top 20" percent of the workforce is most productive, and 70% (the "vital 70") work adequately. The other 10% ("bottom 10") are nonproducers and should be fired. 10% layoff means you are being ranked.

A head of large company once said, "I can cut the bottom 10%, but I don't. Because new 10% will be formed to take place"

Yeah, just cut 1% at a time so they don't notice

Re: Why is every layoff 10-15%?

#154

Post by 331c8c71 »

lostcolony wrote: post #73
grog454 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I suspect you're right, isn't it a little early to conclude the acquisition wasn't successful? Who even knows what successful means in this case?

I didn't conclude it wasn't a 'successful' acquisition. Just a case study of what not to do. Even if it somehow ends up in a place it gets spun as being a success, only Elon fanboys are saying "4d chess! Brilliant!"; anyone with an ounce of sense recognizes how dumb everything about this has been.

> how dumb everything about this has been.

Including pre-musk twitter as a directionless and weird company imo.

Re: Why is every layoff 10-15%?

#156

Post by onethought »

deltree7 wrote: post #63
dymk wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my remote only company is way more productive than my previous in-person company, so there’s the counter anecdote to your anecdote

I'll take any IC or low-level employee's productivity claim with a grain of salt. For a CEO, productivity is at a first order is operating margins. 99% of HNers have no clue how to calculate that (nor have the necessary data).

I mean being Real, most CEOs seem to not know how to do that either… All the “top companies” are cash fires with VC backing.

Re: Why is every layoff 10-15%?

#157

Post by onethought »

bitcharmer wrote: post #141
deltree7 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take any IC or low-level employee's productivity claim with a grain of salt. For a CEO, productivity is at a first order is operating margins. 99% of HNers have no clue how to calculate that (nor have the necessary data).

> 99% of HNers have no clue how to calculate that This is just plain wrong. In big organizations it's the front line worker and not the CEO that can confidently gauge productivity changes simply because C level bean counters always try to quantify productivity with flawed metrics likes lines of code when most people know it's nonsensical.

I think, being generous to the GP doesn’t matter how “productive” a single person or team works, if the whole thing isn’t working well (usually measured in margin) then it doesn’t matter if the engineers “feel” more productive.

Re: Why is every layoff 10-15%?

#158

Post by ilyt »

verst wrote: post #18
paulddraper wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Take a look around and imagine your company with 10-15% less. Most people don't find that such a terrible idea.

That really depends on the distribution of the layoffs. The 10-15% percent aren't necessarily all bad performers but might just be people working on teams that are to be disbanded entirely.

Yeah, if it is mandated "all teams cut 10%" it can be disaster.

Team that managed to hire good people and fire bad performers already ? You're basically taking productivity out.

Ops team that every other software team is dependent on and already overloaded ? Now every other team will feel delay in dealing with their stuff.

Re: Why is every layoff 10-15%?

#159

Post by jstx1 »

lettergram wrote: post #109
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.

Look at Facebook's employee curve in the article - it looks pretty much exponential. If they lay off 50% of their employees, they'll be at 2018 levels when they had essentially the same business model.

Re: Why is every layoff 10-15%?

#160

Post by lozenge »

bitcharmer wrote: post #138
blowski wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your figures sound about right, based on my experience. In London, the cost per employee I’ve used is £15k pa. That includes office space and maintenance, taxes, plus IT costs, entertainment, HR, etc. The cost for fully remote employees is £9k pa. That is, the cost of the office is £6K per employee. There are additional costs for remote employees, like remote support. But these balance against not having to buy offic…

> The cost for fully remote employees is £9k pa I'm really surprised by such high figure. How was this clalculated?

They did say it includes taxes, maybe they are including a 3% pension contribution or even Employers' NI which can run to 12% of salary.
Post reply on HN