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

Bitpanda said no mass layoffs, three weeks before axing one-third of staff

theblock.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 95 posts

Re: Bitpanda said no mass layoffs, three weeks before axing one-third of staff

#41

Post by willcipriano »

gnicholas wrote: post #10

What are the appropriate or possible responses to being publicly asked if you're going to do a layoff, in the case that: (1) you are definitely going to do a layoff (2) you have not yet decided but are considering it (3) you are definitely not doing a layoff In the past, HNers have mentioned that if you admit you're going to lay people off, then your best performers will leave. Is that true? If so, what should compan…

Flip the situation around so you can emphasize more easily.

Let's say your employee walks up and they tell you that "my life situation is uncertain going forward, my ability to deliver on my end of this bargain may be limited and outside of my control."

On the other hand you have the resume of someone you can hire, they are willing to agree to a contract where they will deliver more productivity than the previous employee, problem is you can only employ one of them.

If feeding your family depended on the productivity of the person in that role, who do you go with?

Re: Bitpanda said no mass layoffs, three weeks before axing one-third of staff

#42

Post by Jistern »

Xylakant wrote: post #30
danaris wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're doing layoffs, then generally one of three things is true: 1) The company is in bad shape, and the layoff is a Hail Mary play to try and delay the inevitable long enough for a miracle to happen 2) The company is in fine shape, but for whatever reason, has done an honest self-assessment and determined that they've got more people working there than are necessary to continue operating (and, if they're really…

There’s also 4) the company is overall not in a good shape, but some parts are and others not. Closing down the loss-generating chunks and shrinking to concentrate on the actual profitable sectors can be a successful way out.

Good point! I hadn't thought of that.

Re: Bitpanda said no mass layoffs, three weeks before axing one-third of staff

#44

Post by jcadam »

gnicholas wrote: post #23
bombcar wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably being open from the beginning is the way to go, but if your top performers are going to leave because they hear layoffs are coming, they will still leave after layoffs have arrived. Most likely won't.

So is this part of the reason why Zuck would have framed FB's impending actions as being focused on low-performers? That way, people who believe themselves to be high-performers wouldn't bail.

Problem: Imposter syndrome.

The overlap between people who think very highly of themselves and your top performers may not be 100%. It's probably quite a bit less.

Re: Bitpanda said no mass layoffs, three weeks before axing one-third of staff

#45

Post by onion2k »

gnicholas wrote: post #10

What are the appropriate or possible responses to being publicly asked if you're going to do a layoff, in the case that: (1) you are definitely going to do a layoff (2) you have not yet decided but are considering it (3) you are definitely not doing a layoff In the past, HNers have mentioned that if you admit you're going to lay people off, then your best performers will leave. Is that true? If so, what should compan…

In the past, HNers have mentioned that if you admit you're going to lay people off, then your best performers will leave. Is that true?

Any kind of layoffs will cause your best performers to leave regardless of whether you tell people ahead of time. It's a strong signal that the company is in survival mode instead of growth mode, which at least means raises and bonuses are in doubt and at worst means the company is going under soon. It's better to accept that you're going to lose more people than you plan for and deal with the fallout as best you can.

Re: Bitpanda said no mass layoffs, three weeks before axing one-third of staff

#46

Post by jbay808 »

skeeter2020 wrote: post #26
r053bud wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will always want honesty from the company I work for. If they pull something like this, trust is completely lost and I’ll be looking elsewhere. If I were in charge, I’d admit our mistakes (we over hired, didn’t foresee economic conditions, invested in the wrong areas) which caused the need for layoffs. I’d never tell my employees that there would be no layoffs unless I was 100% certain of it.

Looking for honesty from a company is kind of silly when you think about it... it's a pathological, amoral entity with a single, well-defined legal purpose, afforded some notion of human rights. Executives are legally obligated to serve it. They can provide honest analysis after the fact but early notice is a mistake, even if it means lying to you.

Trust, which is instrumentally valuable, is the wage earned by honesty. Even a pathological, amoral entity will find value in being honest, unless they assign no value to being trusted.

Re: Bitpanda said no mass layoffs, three weeks before axing one-third of staff

#47

Post by jcadam »

bink wrote: post #8
killingtime74 wrote: post #2

If your company so as mentions layoffs, even (especially?) if they deny it, they are coming. Just like a Pip, if it gets mentioned, start looking for another job

I don't think one signal alone is sufficient to make that determination. Lots of companies try to comfort employees during downturns. In my experience before you see mass layoffs you'll also see some of the following: hiring freezes, benefit cutbacks, travel bans, infrastructure cost cutting, office closures, revamps to employee evaluation processes, etc. Without at least some other factors I wouldn't assume a compan…

Yep, if you were around in 2008, you recognize it starting again....

Re: Bitpanda said no mass layoffs, three weeks before axing one-third of staff

#48

Post by capableweb »

onion2k wrote: post #45
gnicholas wrote: post #10

What are the appropriate or possible responses to being publicly asked if you're going to do a layoff, in the case that: (1) you are definitely going to do a layoff (2) you have not yet decided but are considering it (3) you are definitely not doing a layoff In the past, HNers have mentioned that if you admit you're going to lay people off, then your best performers will leave. Is that true? If so, what should compan…

In the past, HNers have mentioned that if you admit you're going to lay people off, then your best performers will leave. Is that true? Any kind of layoffs will cause your best performers to leave regardless of whether you tell people ahead of time. It's a strong signal that the company is in survival mode instead of growth mode, which at least means raises and bonuses are in doubt and at worst means the company is g…

Another way of going through it, is to share that you might have to do layoffs, watch as people leave and enough people might leave so you don't have to do layoffs in the end. If enough people don't leave, go ahead with layoff. It's both transparent and honest, no lies required.

Re: Bitpanda said no mass layoffs, three weeks before axing one-third of staff

#49

Post by killingtime74 »

gnicholas wrote: post #13
killingtime74 wrote: post #2

If your company so as mentions layoffs, even (especially?) if they deny it, they are coming. Just like a Pip, if it gets mentioned, start looking for another job

What if the company doesn't bring it up, but says there won't be a layoff in response to a direct question (at an employee town hall, for example)? It seems like that's how a lot of these rumors get started.

If I was in charge I would deflect and talk about how strong fundamentals were etc

Re: Bitpanda said no mass layoffs, three weeks before axing one-third of staff

#50

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

gnicholas wrote: post #10

What are the appropriate or possible responses to being publicly asked if you're going to do a layoff, in the case that: (1) you are definitely going to do a layoff (2) you have not yet decided but are considering it (3) you are definitely not doing a layoff In the past, HNers have mentioned that if you admit you're going to lay people off, then your best performers will leave. Is that true? If so, what should compan…

> (3) you are definitely not doing a layoff

> Relatedly, how does a company credibly promise not to do layoffs, to put people's minds at ease?

In both cases: A hard, legally binding commitment.

That said, a company that promised employees no layoffs should not be able to do layoffs and/or be subject to fraud charges.

Post reply on HN