21–30 of 263 posts
I think if you only need to get rid of say 3%, then you can probably just do a hiring freeze and wait for natural turn over. If you need to get rid of 40%, doing it all at once is probably too much of a shock to the company (too difficult to figure out who to transfer responsibility to). So 10-15% is just right: enough to be worth it, not too much to cause excessive turmoil.
nobody's firing productive workers.
Interesting, but I think they're over-thinking it. A lot. At any given moment, most companies can probably justify cutting 10-15% of dead weight. But when you cross that line, that's a much different smell. The most talented get a whiff, update their CVs and head for the door. The goal is to cut the bottom and leave the top. Take off too much bottom and your top will leave "voluntarily".
> 10-15% seems to be the number that reflects “big enough that I can tell myself and my investors or board I am doing it, but not so big that it causes truly uncomfortable conversations for the team”
> 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? Were they started during Covid? Office leases are typically at least 5 years, so most existing companies will still have them, hence return. Edit: removed assertion assertion
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since we know that to be false, I assume you're just being a smartass. If you disagree, there are more polite, constructive ways to say so.
You made up a statistic, what good does it do to spread misinformation?
Fortunately I've never had to invoke blanket headcount cuts. But, as an employer, I've been given the advice "cut once, cut deep" many times. The theory (which I understand) is that employees get skittish once you get to a second or third cut. The author suggests some companies could stand a 50% cut if that is what is needed. This month though we've seen twitter cull 50% and twitter users, and customers (advertisers)…
Now Elon is ending a policy literally called "Work From Home Forever" and with no flexibility -- back to the office 5 days a week.
Why would an employee feel safe when literally everything about Twitter changed overnight?
10% comes from the ancient Roman tradition of Decimation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(punishment) >> The dual purpose intended was to stiffen discipline amongst the army at large and to demoralise the enemy
I'm sure every executive is calling back to their days studying roman history when they decide how much of a layoff will balance the books/turn the company profitable for its stakeholders.
because that's roughly the amount of ESG dead weight. nobody's firing productive workers.