5 ms·
There's a common consequence to staff cuts that OP did not seem to consider: when cuts occur, OTHERS take that as a signal to leave. He just blindsided his staf
by crispyambulance 6y ago
There's a common consequence to staff cuts that OP did not seem to consider: when cuts occur, OTHERS take that as a signal to leave. He just blindsided his staff on "day 2", it could easily happen that another 2,3,4, or more people are now planning to GTFO before they're next. All that careful planning will then be for shit because he just cut to the bone, and then the bones will start leaving.
There's no easy way to do this stuff. It's ugly no matter how you approach it.
- jacquesm 6y agoExactly. Everybody that is able to move is going to move and this organization will collapse in a couple of months when the last people that have knowledge will leave. The only people that won't leave are the ones that can't leave and usually those are not the ones that keep the lights on. Dumbest move ever. If on day #2 you think you know enough about an organization to start hacking away dead wood then you are way out of your league.
- m463 6y agoHe was told to downsize, which means there's someone above him not owning it.
- jacquesm 6y agoYes, that was the bigger failure here. The CEO is clearly incapable as well, but that was more or less a given taking the context communicated in the article into account. No CEO would farm out their responsibility like this. At best he would have asked the new CTO for some input.