3 ms·
I can posit a few things. My work is "down the street" from them and they hired extremely quickly. From murmurs I've heard that seemed to actually work out ok.
by Moto7451 9y ago
I can posit a few things. My work is "down the street" from them and they hired extremely quickly. From murmurs I've heard that seemed to actually work out ok. Having experienced really fast growth at my work, but not their rate of fast growth, I can trow some spaghetti on the wall that will probably hit somewhere near the mark for some set of the 100 firings.
1. Managing out.
If you hire quickly and perhaps not carefully, you'll hire people who don't necessarily perform as well as you thought (generally), don't perform well in your environment in spite of their talents (i.e. Chris Lattner's short stint at Tesla), or don't get along with the team and hurt culture.
2. Under the same fast growth, you may also hire a specialist for some technology you decide to get rid of.
While the ideal situation is finding a new role or moving them to a different team with a similar technology (i.e. one NoSQL DB to another), you may not be able to do that if you hired lots of folks all at once.
3. They simply over hired.
This can mean they don't have enough managers and people are being poorly utilized, they hired opportunistically, or they were just poorly coordinated.
4. They need to make their accounting look better.
People cost money, until you stop paying them. Not much to say here.
- tyingq 9y agoInsightful...thanks for sharing. It's a shame companies don't consider the personal turmoil they create when moving that fast.
- eitally 9y agoMeh. Remember, they're paying you for a service, and they can terminate the relationship largely at-will when that service is no longer required. I'm not saying I agree with how the US employment system currently functions, but them's the facts. If you value stability or loyalty, definitely don't join a hyper-growth startup.
- ad-hominem 9y agoI would think it's pretty clear by now that "companies" in general have no morals. The only time a company won't take an action that would make them money is if that action is illegal. Usually. I mean, if corporations will spend hundreds of billions lobbying governments to pass obviously immoral laws in their own favor (net neutrality anyone?), why would you assume they give a shit about Gary, the Redis expert they hired and don't need anymore?
- 6ak74rfy 9y ago2. Under the same fast growth, you may also hire a specialist for some technology you decide to get rid of. This would only lead to a very small (less than 3-5), if any, part of the 100 engineers getting fired. 3. They simply over hired. I guess some part of this could also have been because they de-prioritized some big features, that led to some engineers not having enough work.
- Moto7451 9y agoRight. I’m not saying these suggestions cover every person being let go. My position is that rather than this being a doom and gloom event for Snap, like some other comments have suggested, there are many reasons. These are the ones I’ve seen happen personally.