4 ms·

5% is insane, I would never work for a company that regularly laid off that many people. Firing under performers is one thing, but to systematically clear house

5% is insane, I would never work for a company that regularly laid off that many people. Firing under performers is one thing, but to systematically clear house is toxic. How are you supposed to build a career if one of your coworkers/friends is canned every year, so everyone is wondering what year is theirs? So people overwork themselves to make sure it doesn't happen to them. You need to show your employees safety, so one bad project doesn't ruin their lives.

rmdashrfstar 8y ago
I think it's less about building a career and more about accomplishing the goals of the CEO and the company.
- riffraff 8y ago
  Having a workforce that is unhappy and worried about their career and life is not a recipe to achieve goals sustainably, maybe.
- __m 8y ago
  I doubt the ceo will accomplish any goals without employees. if you want them to align with the company’s goals you have to help them achieve their goals, otherwise you might as well outsource the work.
mirsadm 8y ago
Personally I would be leaving any company that was laying off 5% of people immediately. That sends a signal that they are underperforming and it would destroy morale. Doing it every year is obscene.
- cal5k 8y ago
  I doubt you'd notice, since it would tend to happen throughout the year. Anecdotally, sales times have MUCH higher attrition rates than this - if they don't they're probably retaining too many underperforming staff.
AdrianB1 8y ago
5% is normal attrition in a company, depending on the specifics it can be even higher. The difference is between people that leave on their own (good or bad) and shaving the lowest 5% out. In this world most companies don't have very high standards, even mid-performers can be quite bad. If you are in any way competent, you'd never have any such problems.
screye 8y ago
Wasn't that a big reason for Microsoft under-performing in the Ballmer era ?

rmdashrfstar 8y ago

I think it's less about building a career and more about accomplishing the goals of the CEO and the company.

riffraff 8y ago
Having a workforce that is unhappy and worried about their career and life is not a recipe to achieve goals sustainably, maybe.
__m 8y ago
I doubt the ceo will accomplish any goals without employees. if you want them to align with the company’s goals you have to help them achieve their goals, otherwise you might as well outsource the work.

mirsadm 8y ago

Personally I would be leaving any company that was laying off 5% of people immediately. That sends a signal that they are underperforming and it would destroy morale. Doing it every year is obscene.

cal5k 8y ago
I doubt you'd notice, since it would tend to happen throughout the year. Anecdotally, sales times have MUCH higher attrition rates than this - if they don't they're probably retaining too many underperforming staff.

AdrianB1 8y ago

5% is normal attrition in a company, depending on the specifics it can be even higher. The difference is between people that leave on their own (good or bad) and shaving the lowest 5% out. In this world most companies don't have very high standards, even mid-performers can be quite bad. If you are in any way competent, you'd never have any such problems.

screye 8y ago

Wasn't that a big reason for Microsoft under-performing in the Ballmer era ?