4 ms·

Layoffs are always a failure of leadership, but leadership will always choose to dodge blame if given an out. Hence, "low performers."

• hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
  > Layoffs are always a failure of leadership I completely disagree. Which would you rather have: (a) Business is booming, but leadership holds off on hiring because they believe the boom won't last forever. (b) Business is booming, so leadership hires to support the boom. The boom eventually subsides, so leadership decides to lay off as the business is no longer there. Fortunately, even as an employee, I'd much rather have (b) (assuming the timeframe was relatively decent, i.e. I didn't get hired and laid off in 3 months). I've said this before, but in growing industries, I do not believe lay offs are something to fear. I mean, given the desire for experienced engineers and product people, I have no doubt these Uber folks will get snatched up extremely quickly. (and to emphasize, I certainly do NOT believe this is the case with shrinking industries)
  • whateveracct 7y ago
    My issue is this framing of it as "we're cutting low performers."
  • rhizome 7y ago
    (c) Robot cars were a mistake.