5 ms·

This is what seems right to me. It's not the virtual nature, it's the lazy mass group layoff that's objectionable and disrespectful. If you're being laid off,

by tyingq 5y ago

This is what seems right to me. It's not the virtual nature, it's the lazy mass group layoff that's objectionable and disrespectful. If you're being laid off, you probably have a lot of questions. A 1:1 meeting would allow for that.

prionassembly 5y ago
Hell, 10:1 would be okay and 1/10th of the price.
baby 5y ago
Disagree. Why make the HR team go through 900 individual calls? At the same time this will leak and other employees will learn that they might get fired before they get their own call. Recipe for disaster. Just rip off the band aid.
- bumby 5y ago
  I think it boils down to leadership is really about managing relationships. This method is just too impersonal for most people, just like breaking off a romantic relationship via text is generally considered weak and frowned upon.
  - johndubchak 5y ago
    Wait, you're not supposed to break up over text? Since when?!?!?!
    - recursive 5y ago
      I'm almost certain this is a joke. Right?
      - johndubchak 5y ago
        Yes. My apologies, I thought it seemed obvious.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - throwanem 5y ago
    I suspect it is rare, though I suppose not impossible, that anyone needs to break off 900 romantic relationships at once.
    - bumby 5y ago
      I understand your point, but if there aren’t subordinate leaders below the CEO who can perform this function, I suspect they have organizational structure problems. I believe a good approach would be to have those first line leaders (who actually have that relationship built with their subordinates) break the bad news and then the CEO speak to everybody and own the decision.
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    Why would you need to text? Surely after seeing your relationship status change on Facebook, they would understand?
- tyingq 5y ago
  Presumably the 900 people already had leaders that could talk to them.
- buitreVirtual 5y ago
  Each manager would have to make that call to their laid-off reports, or the next manager in line if the manager is being laid off too. Maybe after that it would be ok for HR to have larger meetings with those affected to sort out the details.
  - usrusr 5y ago
    “or the next manager in line if the manager is being laid off too“ What if the whole chains are axed? Recursive "or the next manager" could easily lead to exactly what happened: a CEO lucky to have a pandemic voiding all expectations to do something like that in person.
- time_to_smile 5y ago
  > Why make the HR team go through 900 individual calls? The entire reason companies have hierarchical power structures (in theory) at least, is so that information can be passed along with the log of the company size. Having every manager have 10 min call with each direct report, or in the worse case a team meeting, would be much more human and could accomplish the task of notification in roughly the same time window as an all hands firing.
  - baby 5y ago
    You got it right up until the point where you think it’s to pass information from top to down. It’s not. It’s to pass information from the bottom up.
trasz 5y ago
Tbh from the quotes it seems Vishal Garg is not only incompetent, but also a bit of a shitgibbon. Not sure if 1:1 meeting would help in anything here.
- tyingq 5y ago
  Ah, I didn't mean a 1:1 with the CEO. A 1:1 meeting with your leader or an HR person.
gambiting 5y ago
The problem is that 900 people is a lot of people. Imagine all managers scheduling meetings with their reports to tell them, then the managers themselves are probably being let go, in the meantime it would create A LOT of stress not knowing whether you will be called in for a meeting or not, just sitting there seeing people being let go around you 1 by 1. The whole process would take a week just to have a proper meeting and give everyone decent time to process and ask questions. In a way, I think this is better - it's quicker, everyone knows where they stand, there is no uncertainty about it. However, I do agree that 1) the communication from the CEO could be better 2) people should be given an opportunity to then still ask questions, either for HR or their managers(if still employed).
- tshaddox 5y ago
  > Imagine all managers scheduling meetings with their reports to tell them, then the managers themselves are probably being let go… Yeah, I imagined all of this and it seemed like exactly what a competent company would do.
- cortesoft 5y ago
  Companies do massive layoffs all the time without large meetings to tell everyone at the meeting they are fired. It isn't that hard.
  - seabird 5y ago
    It can be done and it isn't hard for the company. I'm going to float a guess that you haven't experienced a mass layoff where they pop your coworkers one by one over the course of the workday. It's very painful and takes a very long time. Anybody who has been around for one would almost certainly take the mass layoff over 8+ hours of constant worry just to lose your job at the end anyway.
    - cortesoft 5y ago
      I have been around for a number of mass layoffs, and you are right it sucked. It will always suck, there is no way around it. It doesn’t have to take all day. Managers meet with the people being laid off in the morning. If it is too large to do 1on1, you can do small meetings with a few people and their manager. Point is that it should come from your direct manager (or the closest direct manager in the chain if managers are also being laid off).
gruez 5y ago
> It's not the virtual nature, it's the lazy mass group layoff that's objectionable and disrespectful. Is it? I can plausibly make the other argument that not having to do it yourself and offloading it to middle managers/HR is also "objectionable and disrespectful".
- bumby 5y ago
  If the CEO didn’t want to seem like he was passing the buck, he could have had an all-hands meeting afterwards and explain it was ultimately his decision.
- tyingq 5y ago
  I've been on both sides, but yes, just my opinion. On the other hand, this is newsworthy because it's unusual. I suspect it's unusual for a reason.
PeterisP 5y ago
Unlike when someone is being fired individually, in mass layoffs there simply are no individual answers to questions - any questions are either relevant to everyone and should be communicated in a mass manner, or they are questions which are not answerable at all. Any proper questions that have a reasonable answer would absolutely deserve that answer to be made to everyone else in the exact same manner, even if they don't think to ask that question. Any questions about "why" are reduced to essentially "your individual job performance and role does not matter, it's just that this business unit ceases to exist as of yyyy-dd-mm". Any questions about "what next" are answered by "Here's the details on the severance conditions for you - the exact same as for the other 899 people".

by tyingq 5y ago

prionassembly 5y ago

Hell, 10:1 would be okay and 1/10th of the price.

baby 5y ago

Disagree. Why make the HR team go through 900 individual calls? At the same time this will leak and other employees will learn that they might get fired before they get their own call. Recipe for disaster. Just rip off the band aid.

bumby 5y ago
I think it boils down to leadership is really about managing relationships. This method is just too impersonal for most people, just like breaking off a romantic relationship via text is generally considered weak and frowned upon.
- johndubchak 5y ago
  Wait, you're not supposed to break up over text? Since when?!?!?!
  - recursive 5y ago
    I'm almost certain this is a joke. Right?
    - johndubchak 5y ago
      Yes. My apologies, I thought it seemed obvious.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- throwanem 5y ago
  I suspect it is rare, though I suppose not impossible, that anyone needs to break off 900 romantic relationships at once.
  - bumby 5y ago
    I understand your point, but if there aren’t subordinate leaders below the CEO who can perform this function, I suspect they have organizational structure problems. I believe a good approach would be to have those first line leaders (who actually have that relationship built with their subordinates) break the bad news and then the CEO speak to everybody and own the decision.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  Why would you need to text? Surely after seeing your relationship status change on Facebook, they would understand?
tyingq 5y ago
Presumably the 900 people already had leaders that could talk to them.
buitreVirtual 5y ago
Each manager would have to make that call to their laid-off reports, or the next manager in line if the manager is being laid off too. Maybe after that it would be ok for HR to have larger meetings with those affected to sort out the details.
- usrusr 5y ago
  “or the next manager in line if the manager is being laid off too“ What if the whole chains are axed? Recursive "or the next manager" could easily lead to exactly what happened: a CEO lucky to have a pandemic voiding all expectations to do something like that in person.
time_to_smile 5y ago
> Why make the HR team go through 900 individual calls? The entire reason companies have hierarchical power structures (in theory) at least, is so that information can be passed along with the log of the company size. Having every manager have 10 min call with each direct report, or in the worse case a team meeting, would be much more human and could accomplish the task of notification in roughly the same time window as an all hands firing.
- baby 5y ago
  You got it right up until the point where you think it’s to pass information from top to down. It’s not. It’s to pass information from the bottom up.

trasz 5y ago

Tbh from the quotes it seems Vishal Garg is not only incompetent, but also a bit of a shitgibbon. Not sure if 1:1 meeting would help in anything here.

tyingq 5y ago
Ah, I didn't mean a 1:1 with the CEO. A 1:1 meeting with your leader or an HR person.

gambiting 5y ago

The problem is that 900 people is a lot of people. Imagine all managers scheduling meetings with their reports to tell them, then the managers themselves are probably being let go, in the meantime it would create A LOT of stress not knowing whether you will be called in for a meeting or not, just sitting there seeing people being let go around you 1 by 1. The whole process would take a week just to have a proper meeting and give everyone decent time to process and ask questions. In a way, I think this is better - it's quicker, everyone knows where they stand, there is no uncertainty about it. However, I do agree that 1) the communication from the CEO could be better 2) people should be given an opportunity to then still ask questions, either for HR or their managers(if still employed).

tshaddox 5y ago
> Imagine all managers scheduling meetings with their reports to tell them, then the managers themselves are probably being let go… Yeah, I imagined all of this and it seemed like exactly what a competent company would do.
cortesoft 5y ago
Companies do massive layoffs all the time without large meetings to tell everyone at the meeting they are fired. It isn't that hard.
- seabird 5y ago
  It can be done and it isn't hard for the company. I'm going to float a guess that you haven't experienced a mass layoff where they pop your coworkers one by one over the course of the workday. It's very painful and takes a very long time. Anybody who has been around for one would almost certainly take the mass layoff over 8+ hours of constant worry just to lose your job at the end anyway.
  - cortesoft 5y ago
    I have been around for a number of mass layoffs, and you are right it sucked. It will always suck, there is no way around it. It doesn’t have to take all day. Managers meet with the people being laid off in the morning. If it is too large to do 1on1, you can do small meetings with a few people and their manager. Point is that it should come from your direct manager (or the closest direct manager in the chain if managers are also being laid off).

gruez 5y ago

> It's not the virtual nature, it's the lazy mass group layoff that's objectionable and disrespectful. Is it? I can plausibly make the other argument that not having to do it yourself and offloading it to middle managers/HR is also "objectionable and disrespectful".

bumby 5y ago
If the CEO didn’t want to seem like he was passing the buck, he could have had an all-hands meeting afterwards and explain it was ultimately his decision.
tyingq 5y ago
I've been on both sides, but yes, just my opinion. On the other hand, this is newsworthy because it's unusual. I suspect it's unusual for a reason.

PeterisP 5y ago

Unlike when someone is being fired individually, in mass layoffs there simply are no individual answers to questions - any questions are either relevant to everyone and should be communicated in a mass manner, or they are questions which are not answerable at all. Any proper questions that have a reasonable answer would absolutely deserve that answer to be made to everyone else in the exact same manner, even if they don't think to ask that question. Any questions about "why" are reduced to essentially "your individual job performance and role does not matter, it's just that this business unit ceases to exist as of yyyy-dd-mm". Any questions about "what next" are answered by "Here's the details on the severance conditions for you - the exact same as for the other 899 people".