4 ms·

Every layoff I've witnessed first or second-hand was preceded by the same promise within <2 months from the layoff. I've come to the conclusion it's a necessary

by axg11 4y ago

Every layoff I've witnessed first or second-hand was preceded by the same promise within <2 months from the layoff. I've come to the conclusion it's a necessary evil. These questions are only asked of leaders at companies on a shaky footing. As a CEO, your only option is to deny there will be layoffs. Any other statement will cause panic.

foobiekr 4y ago
Most of the time, official denials like this are official confirmations. You just have to parse the actual statement. Recently, the CEO of a giant and old tech company, got into a meeting with all of his manager and above employees and very, very carefully said "no layoff is planned." Of course not: planned means they have finished.
- endemic 4y ago
  Exactly. At the point where the question is being asked, you already know the answer.
luma 4y ago
> I've come to the conclusion it's a necessary evil. You can drop the word "necessary" from that statement. We're just saying that CEOs, by the nature of their job, are not to be trusted with anything that might come between the shareholders and the money they think they are due. Let's not say that the poor CEOs are in an untenable position, rather, the sort of person who is comfortable with choosing an investor's bank account over an employee's family is also the sort of person who is likely to be chosen to be CEO.
- mason55 4y ago
  > the sort of person who is comfortable with choosing an investor's bank account over an employee's family is also the sort of person who is likely to be chosen to be CEO. A hard part about being a leader is doing what's best for the highest number of people. If you're short on runway and the investors tell you that you either lay people off or you're not getting funded, it's not about choosing investors over employees, it's about saving as many employees as you can. In the current climate this is exactly what investors are saying. Ben Horowitz has some good stories about this in The Hard Thing About Hard Things
- xeromal 4y ago
  This analogy is a bit of a stretch I know, but I think they're compatible. A leader's job in war and in a company is to ensure the morale of their soldiers. You may be in a losing situation, but if you're honest, you're guaranteed to lose. If people think there's still a fighting chance, the company may yet succeed. Of course, there are better ways than outright saying no, but complete honesty is not the solution always.
- tyrfing 4y ago
  > choosing an investor's bank account over an employee's family Unity, along with most of the tech industry, loses incredible amounts of money, and salaries are typically their biggest expense. Those losses (salaries) are paid out of investor bank accounts, which the company cannot control. Thus those employees are highly exposed to liquidity pullbacks like now, since employing them was never profitable. Unity plans to cut 100 million in expenses this year, and hopes to stop losing money next year.
rightbyte 4y ago
> As a CEO, your only option is to deny there will be layoffs. Any other statement will cause panic. Really? Where unions are strong layoffs can be negotiated for months. There is no panic.

by axg11 4y ago

foobiekr 4y ago

Most of the time, official denials like this are official confirmations. You just have to parse the actual statement. Recently, the CEO of a giant and old tech company, got into a meeting with all of his manager and above employees and very, very carefully said "no layoff is planned." Of course not: planned means they have finished.

endemic 4y ago
Exactly. At the point where the question is being asked, you already know the answer.

luma 4y ago

> I've come to the conclusion it's a necessary evil. You can drop the word "necessary" from that statement. We're just saying that CEOs, by the nature of their job, are not to be trusted with anything that might come between the shareholders and the money they think they are due. Let's not say that the poor CEOs are in an untenable position, rather, the sort of person who is comfortable with choosing an investor's bank account over an employee's family is also the sort of person who is likely to be chosen to be CEO.

mason55 4y ago
> the sort of person who is comfortable with choosing an investor's bank account over an employee's family is also the sort of person who is likely to be chosen to be CEO. A hard part about being a leader is doing what's best for the highest number of people. If you're short on runway and the investors tell you that you either lay people off or you're not getting funded, it's not about choosing investors over employees, it's about saving as many employees as you can. In the current climate this is exactly what investors are saying. Ben Horowitz has some good stories about this in The Hard Thing About Hard Things
xeromal 4y ago
This analogy is a bit of a stretch I know, but I think they're compatible. A leader's job in war and in a company is to ensure the morale of their soldiers. You may be in a losing situation, but if you're honest, you're guaranteed to lose. If people think there's still a fighting chance, the company may yet succeed. Of course, there are better ways than outright saying no, but complete honesty is not the solution always.
tyrfing 4y ago
> choosing an investor's bank account over an employee's family Unity, along with most of the tech industry, loses incredible amounts of money, and salaries are typically their biggest expense. Those losses (salaries) are paid out of investor bank accounts, which the company cannot control. Thus those employees are highly exposed to liquidity pullbacks like now, since employing them was never profitable. Unity plans to cut 100 million in expenses this year, and hopes to stop losing money next year.

rightbyte 4y ago

> As a CEO, your only option is to deny there will be layoffs. Any other statement will cause panic. Really? Where unions are strong layoffs can be negotiated for months. There is no panic.