Live data from Hacker News

Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

blog.dropbox.com

281–290 of 1001 posts

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#281
post #44

TIL that nobody knows what they're doing. Jokes aside, how do you end up having more than 500 excess people than what you need? What is management exactly doing during the time they went from 1 excess person to 500? Did they just hope the "macroeconomic headwinds" would become tailwinds? Didn't they at some point see that they have more people than valuable work, and maybe we should deal with that problem instead of…

> Jokes aside, how do you end up having more than 500 excess people than what you need?

This question always gets posted to HN, and is always the top comment whenever an article talks about how many people Company XYZ has. It seems like a lot of people just have never worked for a company that's growing (in terms of both profit and the amount of _stuff_ they are trying to do). Companies' need for people grows quadratically in proportion to the amount they are trying to do, not linearly. If it takes a staff of 20 to deal with 2 "units of work", it's going to take many more than 40 to deal with 4 units, more like 80. For 10 units of work, we're talking a staff of 500. You need all of these people to manage all of the growing internal network of complexity and yes bureaucracy that forms whenever you need to get people to work together. For every N people you hire, you'll need a manager to manage them, and for every N of those managers, you'll need a second level manager, and so on. You also start needing to actually deal with legal and regulatory compliance (rather than the yolo approach most startups take), you need to deal with HR and payroll for all these new people, you need to deal with power-of-2-scaling training and internal documentation needs. And all of those people you hire to do these things need their own managers and on and on and on.

I've never seen a company successfully scale what they are trying to do without needing a ton of people. Maybe every company I've ever worked at is just inefficient but I don't believe it.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actually, I know why. It's because they have too much money and when you have too much cash, you start splurging without thinking and then one day the chickens come home to roost. This is an incredibly uncharitable and shallow take, on the level of that comment many years ago that said something along the lines of "what's so interesting about Dropbox? It's just rsync, I could build it in a weekend". We don't operat…

> This is an incredibly uncharitable and shallow take, So is yours. > We don't operate in a perfectly legible world, especially more so when it comes to people. It's all bets and risks and whatnot. What bet was dropbox taking by overexpanding their workforce by 20%? > If you or anyone has the power to create perfectly aligned and efficient organization, I'm waiting here to see you build large multi-trillion dollar co…

> What bet was dropbox taking by overexpanding their workforce by 20%?

When asking this question, I think it's good to remind ourselves how much we don't know. We don't know if they overstaffed in a push to expand their business that didn't work out, we don't know if the had an older operating model that went from "efficient" to "inefficient" as scale and market dynamics changed. We don't know if advances in productivity to tools, or changes to major client accounts, impacted their staffing needs. Determining whether one is "overstaffed" is a multi-factorial determination that can be false one month and true the next.

Set aside whether it's uncharitable to just assume management oversight or idiocy - it's hubristic. Having said that, it doesn't mean the assumption is wrong, it could be exactly right! But it might not be.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#283
post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actually, I know why. It's because they have too much money and when you have too much cash, you start splurging without thinking and then one day the chickens come home to roost. This is an incredibly uncharitable and shallow take, on the level of that comment many years ago that said something along the lines of "what's so interesting about Dropbox? It's just rsync, I could build it in a weekend". We don't operat…

My understanding is DropBox was trying to transition from sync and share to being a multi-product document-centric company (look at acquisitions like HelloSign). One possibility is they staffed up a bunch of projects on bets that ultimately didn’t turn into viable products, and are now pulling the plug.

More like the cloud sync functions out of the box on Google, Microsoft and Apple products caught up in features and already got good enough for the customer base of these to not bother paying extra for Dropbox no matter how much better they would have been. See Evernote.

It's difficult to go against Apple, Google and Microsoft when they're vertically integrated and can squeeze you on all sides offering an OS, email, browser, cloud sync, document editing, etc with seamless integration between them, while you're just a cloud sync service on their OS. You don't have any moat, while they do. There's no way you can compete with them from that position unless the government were to break up their vertical integration for anti-competitive practices.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#284

This is a stack ranking layoff. They will fill the roles with new roles to teams they believe are more vital to achieving company goals. Pretty much every tech company has operated this way the last couple years. They’ve fired 10-20% and have replaced all those heads pretty much across the board.

and then after the first full clock cycle, middle managers are hiring people to fire them, to keep their core dev team intact so that it can solve problems that take longer than 90 days

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#286
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They say "I take responsibility" and then.. don't take any responsibility. It's insult on injury. How big of a bonus will this CEO get this year? Last year?

Why do people understand this phrase "taking responsibility" as some kind of admitting of fault? Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems neutral and could even be referring to positive future outcomes for the company.

Because the context is that 20% of their employees are now unemployed. The tone of the letter is also "this is a hard but necessary choice" and not "this is great news for dropbox!"

> As CEO, I take full responsibility for this decision and the circumstances that led to it, and I’m truly sorry to those impacted by this change.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know what's better than a great severance plan? Keeping your job.

Not necessarily. If you're actually good at your job, you typically end up with an even better job: https://hbr.org/2018/10/research-when-getting-fired-is-good-...

The linked article is specific to executives and kind of confirms what most are complaining about here.

> a 10-year study of over 2,600 leaders showed almost half (45%) suffered at least one major career blow-up — like getting fired, messing up a major deal, or blowing an acquisition. Despite that, 78% of these executives eventually made it to the CEO role.

An executive can make a series of awful decisions and still advance in their career.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#288
post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what people forget about layoffs is that all those "excess" employees who have been there didn't sit around doing nothing during the time they were there. Those 20% of Dropbox staff wrote a bunch of code, made a bunch of sales, and did a lot of other tasks that will have an impact even after they don't work there anymore. Even though they are being laid off, their contributions still have a positive impact on…

> The truth is that businesses need the employees that they need at a point in time, and that number is constantly changing. Another truth is that we've collectivly decided that all people must be working in order to "earn" their right to exist. So anytime there is a large layoff like this, there are a lot of new stories about people relocating, making major changes to their lives, some for the better, some for the w…

I'm all for better protections for workers, and I think that the US should make companies give employees more notice, or alternatively make unemployment benefits a program that is more automatic, a full 100% of salary instead of being capped, and biased more toward the employee. I.e., I think a company should have to prove to a judge that an employee was fired with cause or quit voluntarily before the employee loses their benefits.

I totally agree with the idea that the benefits of at-will no-notice termination employment are lopsided in favor of the company, but the flip side of that arrangement is that it's very easy to get a new job in the US compared to many other places. It's easy to be hired on a short conversation and a handshake in an at-will environment.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#289
post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open the "More" menu in your Dropbox interface and I think you may be surprised at how many different products they have. I am sure they're not trying to be a Microsoft of Google, but they're trying to make a niche in document handling, file sending, password management, a lot of those little things that are something of a pain for many businesses. I think if you compare what Dropbox is offering at $15/user/month to…

> Open the "More" menu in your Dropbox interface and I think you may be surprised at how many different products they have. Yeah, but what if I don't need/want "more"? I just want my files on my different devices.

I never said you personally are their ideal customer profile.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#290

"As CEO, I take full responsibility for this decision" Oh hey another one that takes responsibility by taking on 0 consequences.

Unpopular opinion, but I don't understand this type of comment. It sounds like people want executives to get some kind of punishment or pain as a consequence of laying people off. But what would that even look like? A fine? That would probably make no practical difference, and would discourage them from making changes that need to be made. Fire them? Then you would probably get a worse decision maker in the driver se…

> It sounds like people want executives to get some kind of punishment or pain as a consequence of laying people off

Um... yeah. Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I want.

I used to work at a Dairy Queen. One dude there had been working there for a couple years. Unfortunately, one shift his drawer came up a dollar short. Our cutoff was 5 cents - a nickel - over or under. He was immediately terminated, of course.

He cost the company one dollar. A Dairy Queen cashier making minimum wage is held to a higher standard of accountability.

Post reply on HN