5 ms·

1) "Multiple rounds" is basically the worst possible way to do layoffs. 2) Based on their recent fundraise (and assuming that they had 0 dollars at that point)

1) "Multiple rounds" is basically the worst possible way to do layoffs. 2) Based on their recent fundraise (and assuming that they had 0 dollars at that point), that's basically a burn rate of 25-30M/m. I'm not sure I can event comprehend what that company could be spending that much money on.

halfdan 4y ago
Having 5000 employees will do that quickly.
- nrmitchi 4y ago
  From what I'm seeing they had ~550 employees as of the beginning of this year (~4 months ago). This was up from ~270 in Sept 2021 (~4 months prior). I would find it very hard to believe they have increased their headcount by 900% (~4500 people) in 4 months.
- datalopers 4y ago
  https://www.linkedin.com/company/bolt-com/ https://www.linkedin.com/company/bolt-com/ While not everyone has a linkedin, 900 employees seems like a reasonably safe pre-layyoffs estimate?
  - polote 4y ago
    Among the 900 a lot of them are drivers at the Bolt delivery company (So not the same one)
urthor 4y ago
Agreed. The way to do layoffs is simple. You get managers to stack rank the lot, then you get every single person with 30 or more reports under them in a room. Then you do the whole layoff in one 5 hour meeting. Swing the axe and get it done in 2 days.
- kasey_junk 4y ago
  I used to work “doing layoffs” and I don’t think I ever saw stack ranking as the layoff strategy. Most often I saw “divisions” or “capabilities” cut, either entirely or to skeleton crews that kept the lights on. Next was just randomly applied. And frankly managers with 30 or more reports were frequently layoff targets as they are expensive and don’t add a ton of obvious value to the bottom line (unless they had a sales function).
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    Was always curious about that from an outcome perspective. It seemed like a company could go "manager-lean" (ax manager count, retain employees) for awhile, easier than vice versus. I'd imagine a lot of paperwork got back up, but presumably the company business roughly kept going. True or false?
    - kasey_junk 4y ago
      I think the overriding lesson I learned from my time doing that job was that people dramatically overestimate their value to a firm. That’s true of ninja rockstar developers and vp directors of business dev. Largely the world keeps turning no matter who leaves a firm no matter the circumstances.
      - sgt101 4y ago
        There is a lot of confirmation bias in this observation. Frankly, the dead have no voices and the missing value and / or damage is often simply unobserved by those who are left. It's rare that the damage is surfaced. I did see an event once though when a fairly senior manager made repeated attempts to hand over some data collection and reporting when they were made redundant but were rebuffed by colleagues and their manager alike. Essentially this person was seen as a bit of a third wheel, and many comments were hurled around during the lay off process along the lines of "not clear what his real contribution is". Well, it turned out that the data that he was collecting, analysising and reporting on was fundamental to the running of a strategic investment. Some months after he left the said project tanked, and because the data was not available a lot of money that potentially should have been recoverable wasn't. So, it cuts both ways.
dexterdog 4y ago
Even a single round is bad because it will cause some of your most hire-able people to look and then likely leave. When a second round comes too close to the first then everybody starts looking hard and the people that stick around are the ones nobody else wants. It would be cheaper to just close the doors.
- nrmitchi 4y ago
  If it’s known it’s a single round, it’s easier for everyone remaining to not look around. When a second round breaks that trust though, all bets are off.
  - laserlight 4y ago
    Leaving things to trust is not an option IMHO. Unless a company can guarantee that there won't be another round, they can always change their mind. I'm not sure if any company can give any such guarantee.
    - nrmitchi 4y ago
      That’s a bit disingenuous; of course no company can make a 100% guarantee. There is still a huge difference between “this is the only round of layoffs, we will grow past this” (when this is the true intent) and “that’s all for this week. We’ll be back with the next round of layoffs on Friday”
rmk 4y ago
In my experience, layoffs almost always happen in waves. The first layoff is usually when nonperformers and people who are already on managers' hit lists (people who are hard to fire only for legal reasons) are jettisoned. Later rounds start eating into actually valuable employees. In the interim, many experienced people read between the lines and make for the exits, further depleting the ranks and leaving behind folks who can not or will not look for opportunities elsewhere.

halfdan 4y ago

Having 5000 employees will do that quickly.

nrmitchi 4y ago
From what I'm seeing they had ~550 employees as of the beginning of this year (~4 months ago). This was up from ~270 in Sept 2021 (~4 months prior). I would find it very hard to believe they have increased their headcount by 900% (~4500 people) in 4 months.
datalopers 4y ago
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bolt-com/ https://www.linkedin.com/company/bolt-com/ While not everyone has a linkedin, 900 employees seems like a reasonably safe pre-layyoffs estimate?
- polote 4y ago
  Among the 900 a lot of them are drivers at the Bolt delivery company (So not the same one)

urthor 4y ago

Agreed. The way to do layoffs is simple. You get managers to stack rank the lot, then you get every single person with 30 or more reports under them in a room. Then you do the whole layoff in one 5 hour meeting. Swing the axe and get it done in 2 days.

kasey_junk 4y ago
I used to work “doing layoffs” and I don’t think I ever saw stack ranking as the layoff strategy. Most often I saw “divisions” or “capabilities” cut, either entirely or to skeleton crews that kept the lights on. Next was just randomly applied. And frankly managers with 30 or more reports were frequently layoff targets as they are expensive and don’t add a ton of obvious value to the bottom line (unless they had a sales function).
- ethbr0 4y ago
  Was always curious about that from an outcome perspective. It seemed like a company could go "manager-lean" (ax manager count, retain employees) for awhile, easier than vice versus. I'd imagine a lot of paperwork got back up, but presumably the company business roughly kept going. True or false?
  - kasey_junk 4y ago
    I think the overriding lesson I learned from my time doing that job was that people dramatically overestimate their value to a firm. That’s true of ninja rockstar developers and vp directors of business dev. Largely the world keeps turning no matter who leaves a firm no matter the circumstances.
    - sgt101 4y ago
      There is a lot of confirmation bias in this observation. Frankly, the dead have no voices and the missing value and / or damage is often simply unobserved by those who are left. It's rare that the damage is surfaced. I did see an event once though when a fairly senior manager made repeated attempts to hand over some data collection and reporting when they were made redundant but were rebuffed by colleagues and their manager alike. Essentially this person was seen as a bit of a third wheel, and many comments were hurled around during the lay off process along the lines of "not clear what his real contribution is". Well, it turned out that the data that he was collecting, analysising and reporting on was fundamental to the running of a strategic investment. Some months after he left the said project tanked, and because the data was not available a lot of money that potentially should have been recoverable wasn't. So, it cuts both ways.

dexterdog 4y ago

Even a single round is bad because it will cause some of your most hire-able people to look and then likely leave. When a second round comes too close to the first then everybody starts looking hard and the people that stick around are the ones nobody else wants. It would be cheaper to just close the doors.

nrmitchi 4y ago
If it’s known it’s a single round, it’s easier for everyone remaining to not look around. When a second round breaks that trust though, all bets are off.
- laserlight 4y ago
  Leaving things to trust is not an option IMHO. Unless a company can guarantee that there won't be another round, they can always change their mind. I'm not sure if any company can give any such guarantee.
  - nrmitchi 4y ago
    That’s a bit disingenuous; of course no company can make a 100% guarantee. There is still a huge difference between “this is the only round of layoffs, we will grow past this” (when this is the true intent) and “that’s all for this week. We’ll be back with the next round of layoffs on Friday”

rmk 4y ago

In my experience, layoffs almost always happen in waves. The first layoff is usually when nonperformers and people who are already on managers' hit lists (people who are hard to fire only for legal reasons) are jettisoned. Later rounds start eating into actually valuable employees. In the interim, many experienced people read between the lines and make for the exits, further depleting the ranks and leaving behind folks who can not or will not look for opportunities elsewhere.