3 ms·

Why do so many execs rely on cutting jobs indiscriminately? They don't know who the problem workers are.

kasey_junk 11y ago
Because there is a lot of evidence that most employees are essentially fungible, at least at the scale of these large companies. I've literally been in a meeting where 1 team that was twice as productive as another was cut because that wasn't enough to make up for the fixed cost differential (rent, benefits, regulatory costs etc).
- bad_user 11y ago
  > there is a lot of evidence that most employees are essentially fungible In software development I don't believe it. This smells like wishful thinking from management for which non-fungible employees are a problem. I'd like to see the evidence you're talking about.
  - phamilton 11y ago
    There are many companies that openly hire for middle of the road developers. It's easy to do, just pay middle of the road salaries. In my experience at these companies, there is sufficient bureaucracy that high performers hit bottlenecks due to the org structure, reducing everyone down to the lowest common denominator anyway. So even an otherwise talented dev can be replaced by a less talented one.
  - effie 11y ago
    Why not? Software development is a technical work which can be performed by thousands of people on the job market. All it takes to replace someone at such a job is time and HR effort to find a person with required level of experience and reasonable pay requirements.
  - jaggederest 11y ago
    The problem is that you're assuming productivity is based on individual merit in these companies. They're so large that essentially nothing about your personal output has any real effect on your individual productivity. It's equal parts politicking, luck, and self-promotion that garners you kudos, not actually getting anything done. In a dysfunctional organization, like I daresay yahoo is at this point, you don't lose anything by firing people who are unable to contribute due to organizational problems. As an example, when I worked at AT&T, individual and project success was decided essentially based on the whim of management. I don't think we went 3 months with the same remit, organization, management structure or goals. In that kind of situation, much like I perceive Yahoo to be, there's really no point in attempting to achieve productive work since the targets change before you can actually do anything. It's pathologically better to focus on shifting blame and self-aggrandizement, so that when things inevitably fail you can dump it on a scapegoat. There's a reason I don't work there any more.
- uhhuhuh 11y ago
  > there is a lot of evidence that most employees are essentially fungible, at least at the scale of these large companies. Yeah, all those software engineers corporate America outsourced in the 2000s turned out to be real fungible, right?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
rboyd 11y ago
Often the lists are built much further down the chain. In cases where they aren't, it's usually purely financially-driven.
1945 11y ago
> indiscriminately There is /a lot/ of debt at Yahoo, I think 10% doesn't even begin to cut through the majority of the fat. Unfortunately, most of issues stem from middle management that seem to avoid the layoff cycles.

Because there is a lot of evidence that most employees are essentially fungible, at least at the scale of these large companies. I've literally been in a meeting where 1 team that was twice as productive as another was cut because that wasn't enough to make up for the fixed cost differential (rent, benefits, regulatory costs etc).

bad_user 11y ago
> there is a lot of evidence that most employees are essentially fungible In software development I don't believe it. This smells like wishful thinking from management for which non-fungible employees are a problem. I'd like to see the evidence you're talking about.
- phamilton 11y ago
  There are many companies that openly hire for middle of the road developers. It's easy to do, just pay middle of the road salaries. In my experience at these companies, there is sufficient bureaucracy that high performers hit bottlenecks due to the org structure, reducing everyone down to the lowest common denominator anyway. So even an otherwise talented dev can be replaced by a less talented one.
- effie 11y ago
  Why not? Software development is a technical work which can be performed by thousands of people on the job market. All it takes to replace someone at such a job is time and HR effort to find a person with required level of experience and reasonable pay requirements.
- jaggederest 11y ago
  The problem is that you're assuming productivity is based on individual merit in these companies. They're so large that essentially nothing about your personal output has any real effect on your individual productivity. It's equal parts politicking, luck, and self-promotion that garners you kudos, not actually getting anything done. In a dysfunctional organization, like I daresay yahoo is at this point, you don't lose anything by firing people who are unable to contribute due to organizational problems. As an example, when I worked at AT&T, individual and project success was decided essentially based on the whim of management. I don't think we went 3 months with the same remit, organization, management structure or goals. In that kind of situation, much like I perceive Yahoo to be, there's really no point in attempting to achieve productive work since the targets change before you can actually do anything. It's pathologically better to focus on shifting blame and self-aggrandizement, so that when things inevitably fail you can dump it on a scapegoat. There's a reason I don't work there any more.
uhhuhuh 11y ago
> there is a lot of evidence that most employees are essentially fungible, at least at the scale of these large companies. Yeah, all those software engineers corporate America outsourced in the 2000s turned out to be real fungible, right?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

rboyd 11y ago

Often the lists are built much further down the chain. In cases where they aren't, it's usually purely financially-driven.

1945 11y ago

> indiscriminately There is /a lot/ of debt at Yahoo, I think 10% doesn't even begin to cut through the majority of the fat. Unfortunately, most of issues stem from middle management that seem to avoid the layoff cycles.