5 ms·

I think it was good leadership actually

• ashtonkem 5y ago
  Good leadership doesn’t result in you losing 1/3rd of the company’s workforce. Or, since I know that the common retort here is “they’re better off without the troublemakers”; good leaders don’t build organizations where 1/3rd of the organization is troublemakers; that’s a failure of hiring. There really is no way to spin this in a way that makes them look good. The PR hit is really just the cherry on top of losing so many people, and paying 6 months of salary for the privilege to boot.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • jack_riminton 5y ago
    Well it might not take them that long to hire 20 people. And even if they couldn’t, having a smaller but more productive workforce might be a win. Irregardless, I think they’re going to have an increase in job applications and do very well in the future
    • ashtonkem 5y ago
      > And even if they couldn’t, having a smaller but more productive workforce might be a win. I wouldn’t want to work for a company that somehow managed to get dragged down by 20 people. If losing those people is making the company better, then it sounds like leadership is deeply incompetent and let things fester for way, way, way too long. Keep in mind that some of those people worked there for 12 years; if losing them is a net positive why weren’t they fired a decade ago? I also think the idea that the remaining workers will be more productive is laughable. Events like these crush morale, even if you ultimately agree with the policy decision being made. Never mind what happens when you lose so much knowledge, including entire teams and directors, with basically no warning or opportunity to transfer knowledge. Hope their docs are world class, or their replacements are gonna have a bad time.