2 ms·

To say you've fucked up in the face of a global pandemic seems a bit obtuse. The current state of normal is not the same way to operate when there is no COVID.

To say you've fucked up in the face of a global pandemic seems a bit obtuse. The current state of normal is not the same way to operate when there is no COVID. Sort of like saying we should have always operated like the bubonic plague never went away even after it did. Treating the situations the same is too dogmatic.

smabie 6y ago
A company should be responding to new information as it comes in and immediately act. People should have been gradually been fired since the start of covid, not all at once months later.
- shap3 6y ago
  Firing people in a continual, drip-feed fashion is devastating to morale of the remaining workers who are fearful they may be next, and sends a message of a slow, rotting decline. Conventional wisdom if you're going to let a large number of people go is to do it once, do it correctly, and act decisively.
  - smabie 6y ago
    You may be right, I hadn't considered the human element. But to clarify, the point of letting go small groups at a time isn't to eventually fire 900 people. It's that you're taking a Bayesian approach and constantly charting a new course for your business. The risk with firing 900 people all at once is what if, in a month, everything is good and they need them all back? By only letting go of small groups of people at a time, you both hedge yourself to future risk while also staying open to future up swings. It's like rebalancing a portfolio: you adjust your allocations gradually as new information comes in. This is better than one day deciding its time to sell everything or buy everything.
    - irjustin 6y ago
      Agreed on the parent comment, the human element is very real. Morale especially during a time of global pandemic is a knife edge to manage. > The risk with firing 900 people all at once is what if, in a month, everything is good and they need them all back? By only letting go of small groups of people at a time, you both hedge yourself to future risk while also staying open to future up swings. Again you're looking at it too closely to a machine. Machines don't care and pure efficiency says this statement is correct/better. If you treat your staff like a portfolio, you are not carrying the tenants of being a good leader. That's not to say that people don't do that. It happens all the time - treating employees sub-human, merely pawns to be sacrificed. A portfolio is a portfolio and the analogy does-not/should-not carry well to staff lest we all be slaves where literal ownership of other humans is acceptable again.

smabie 6y ago

A company should be responding to new information as it comes in and immediately act. People should have been gradually been fired since the start of covid, not all at once months later.

shap3 6y ago
Firing people in a continual, drip-feed fashion is devastating to morale of the remaining workers who are fearful they may be next, and sends a message of a slow, rotting decline. Conventional wisdom if you're going to let a large number of people go is to do it once, do it correctly, and act decisively.
- smabie 6y ago
  You may be right, I hadn't considered the human element. But to clarify, the point of letting go small groups at a time isn't to eventually fire 900 people. It's that you're taking a Bayesian approach and constantly charting a new course for your business. The risk with firing 900 people all at once is what if, in a month, everything is good and they need them all back? By only letting go of small groups of people at a time, you both hedge yourself to future risk while also staying open to future up swings. It's like rebalancing a portfolio: you adjust your allocations gradually as new information comes in. This is better than one day deciding its time to sell everything or buy everything.
  - irjustin 6y ago
    Agreed on the parent comment, the human element is very real. Morale especially during a time of global pandemic is a knife edge to manage. > The risk with firing 900 people all at once is what if, in a month, everything is good and they need them all back? By only letting go of small groups of people at a time, you both hedge yourself to future risk while also staying open to future up swings. Again you're looking at it too closely to a machine. Machines don't care and pure efficiency says this statement is correct/better. If you treat your staff like a portfolio, you are not carrying the tenants of being a good leader. That's not to say that people don't do that. It happens all the time - treating employees sub-human, merely pawns to be sacrificed. A portfolio is a portfolio and the analogy does-not/should-not carry well to staff lest we all be slaves where literal ownership of other humans is acceptable again.