4 ms·

> None of this is rhetorical, as I'm actually genuinely curious what people think about this. I have no background knowledge that gives my opinion any weight,

> None of this is rhetorical, as I'm actually genuinely curious what people think about this. I have no background knowledge that gives my opinion any weight, but like you I generally appreciated the article for being more practical, but then was disappointed when it suddenly stopped. Big questions for me are: how long has this looming reduction been obvious (to the people at the executive level)? Why isn't this sort of an action considered a failure of the execs? Surely this puts a dent in your ability to hire effectively. When you hire an employee and not a contractor, you are stating (imnsho) your expectation to have available work for the foreseeable future. Have these positions been hiring until they suddenly werent? For how long has the plan been ("...and when we are in between big releases, we lay a bunch of people off")? These disgustingly well paid executives are the ones that are supposed to he able to manage these questions. That they haven't and are considered successful feels wrong. One thing I think the article misses - unions may not have directly helped, but what would? If companies legit dont care about their reputations add an employer for certain fields, that tells me those fields have an imbalance at the employee supply/demand level at a minimum. Let's figure out why, and see if we can improve that.

wutbrodo 8y ago
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I think you, I and the author are all in agreement that a pattern of such misestimation is a problem, and that a full-time hire is a good-faith claim at the stability of the job for at least some time. Your point that assessment of executive performance should include employee welfare and thus this misestimation is also well-taken. But the question that really interests me is: conditioned on having made that mistake, what course of action should Activision have taken wrt these employees? Executive pay could be lowered for fucking this up, but given that it wasn't driven by a resource squeeze, the employment status of these employees wouldn't be affected.
- ergothus 8y ago
  An interesting question. Once a mistake is made, what response do we hope for? Truthfully, once enough mistakes have been made, you can't have people happy, you can only have less UNhappy. Speaking off the top of my head (The question really does deserve more thought): * Announce what steps have been taken to not have this happen again. Show some sign of actual regret that this happened. * Don't spring it on people. Normally there's a progression before layoffs: hiring freeze to allow headcount to reduce over time, rumors and acknowledgements that allow headcount to further reduce, informed end-dates and severance packages. While rumors have been swirling, this is WAY too many people for this to be the surprise it seems to have been. * Be careful with contractors. Contractors didn't get any severance. On the one hand, positions of temporary duration practically BEG to be contracts. On the other hand, contracts should (according to my personal and subjective moral outrage) have defined durations and be renegotiated in advance, not end as a sudden surprise if you've fulfilled your part. If you know these are temporary positions, contract appropriately. And, if you've screwed up ENOUGH - yeah, pay people to make up the difference. Don't pay them to do nothing, but these are all professionals of varied skills. Use that. "Hey everyone, we're going to reduce headcount because we don't have enough active work to justify your positions. But we had a record year, so you all have a job for another month, and your tasks in that time are to add value for the company. Build a guide for newcomers, put together a marketing proposal, write a tool for internal use, whatever - you know what the company needs, and now you have a chance to do it." Anything here would be an improvement over what we've seen.

wutbrodo 8y ago

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I think you, I and the author are all in agreement that a pattern of such misestimation is a problem, and that a full-time hire is a good-faith claim at the stability of the job for at least some time. Your point that assessment of executive performance should include employee welfare and thus this misestimation is also well-taken. But the question that really interests me is: conditioned on having made that mistake, what course of action should Activision have taken wrt these employees? Executive pay could be lowered for fucking this up, but given that it wasn't driven by a resource squeeze, the employment status of these employees wouldn't be affected.

ergothus 8y ago
An interesting question. Once a mistake is made, what response do we hope for? Truthfully, once enough mistakes have been made, you can't have people happy, you can only have less UNhappy. Speaking off the top of my head (The question really does deserve more thought): * Announce what steps have been taken to not have this happen again. Show some sign of actual regret that this happened. * Don't spring it on people. Normally there's a progression before layoffs: hiring freeze to allow headcount to reduce over time, rumors and acknowledgements that allow headcount to further reduce, informed end-dates and severance packages. While rumors have been swirling, this is WAY too many people for this to be the surprise it seems to have been. * Be careful with contractors. Contractors didn't get any severance. On the one hand, positions of temporary duration practically BEG to be contracts. On the other hand, contracts should (according to my personal and subjective moral outrage) have defined durations and be renegotiated in advance, not end as a sudden surprise if you've fulfilled your part. If you know these are temporary positions, contract appropriately. And, if you've screwed up ENOUGH - yeah, pay people to make up the difference. Don't pay them to do nothing, but these are all professionals of varied skills. Use that. "Hey everyone, we're going to reduce headcount because we don't have enough active work to justify your positions. But we had a record year, so you all have a job for another month, and your tasks in that time are to add value for the company. Build a guide for newcomers, put together a marketing proposal, write a tool for internal use, whatever - you know what the company needs, and now you have a chance to do it." Anything here would be an improvement over what we've seen.