5 ms·

This LinkedIn post [0] had good suggestions, notably: 1. Don't over-hire in the first place 2. Don't do lay-offs, explore other options like universal paycuts

This LinkedIn post [0] had good suggestions, notably: 1. Don't over-hire in the first place 2. Don't do lay-offs, explore other options like universal paycuts or (IMO) particularly pay cuts for execs The post has a lot more suggestions if you've committed to layoffs. [0]: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6942572403386445825/ https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6942572...

cableshaft 4y ago
> explore other options like universal paycuts I suspect that would just get all the best employees to leave pretty damn quickly, especially if other companies aren't doing paycuts. All for doing it for execs, though. Don't think you'll lose much by letting them jump ship.
hnthrowaway0315 4y ago
Universal pay-cuts basically angers everyone IMHO. Also cutting pays for Execs may not be enough (let's say one exec pay-cut = 5 layoffs).
strix_varius 4y ago
Hard pass on universal paycuts. That's a similarly bad idea to universal raises & promos - hiring & comp decisions should be made based on performance. As an EM, I would much rather get the opportunity to prune under-performing engineers than to have to tell every member of my team I'm cutting their comp, knowing that the best couple will leave quickly afterwards.
- vaidhy 4y ago
  As an EM, why do you have under-performing engineers on your team in the first place? Either your hiring bar is low, you are not giving enough feedback to improve or you are afraid to cut your losses. None of this needs you to wait for an opportunity to prune under-performers.
  - metadat 4y ago
    Simple: Politics, optics, and pragmatism. Up to a point it's better to focus on growth and things you can actually fix rather than trying to trim the bushes.
    - strix_varius 4y ago
      Exactly.
  - strix_varius 4y ago
    That's a naive perspective. An EM is not a king. The process for shedding an engineer is typically long and arduous - a quarter for coaching, then another for a "soft performance plan," and then another quarter for a PIP are not uncommon standard HR practices. God help you if your under-performer is based in, say, Germany. Regarding a hiring bar, typically an EM may have gotten some say in some of their people, but for the most part not. The suggestion that an EM "giving feedback" is sufficient to improve all employees to a high technical bar is hilarious. An EM needs to understand the organizational, political, and HR climate of their org. Use what leverage you have to deliver the most impact. Often, that means not going out of your way to expel mediocre engineers, but rather using your resources to propel the rest of your team members to success.
  - SicSemperUranus 4y ago
    As a PO, how do I tell my boss he hired the wrong person and needs to up his budget by 25% and delay development by 2 months while we hire and onboard someone better? The answer is I don't, because I like my job. Upping all the estimates takes much less energy and is much safer than fighting someone's inflated ego.
- jmathai 4y ago
  The universal cut benefits those who would have been laid off as they're likely the ones who would be most concerned. I've seen this once and the ones who liked it were those who feared losing their jobs knowing it would be hard to find another.
umeshunni 4y ago
#2 is the worst idea ever. Instead of making 20% of (soon to be ex-)employees unhappy, let's make 100% of employees unhappy.
- adra 4y ago
  Those 100% of employees will be affected by the decision to shrink costs regardless of staying or being let go. I'd personally like what happened with one employer. They said there was budget issues and that anyone who wanted to go were offered to be let go with severance. The company is in a slightly worse position that they can't control who took them up on the offer, but it meant that everyone who stayed still wanted to be there and were dedicated to the company post cuts.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    The people who stayed didn’t “want to be there because they believed in the mission” of a for profit company. They probably didn’t have any better alternatives.
- dan_quixote 4y ago
  Why not implement it with an improvement plan that restores the cut pegged to profit/revenue? You could even throw in a cash/stock bonus at some threshold and even a raise?
scarface74 4y ago
Universal pay cuts are the worse thing that a company can do. The best employees can get a job quickly and your lowest performers will tend to stay - the exact opposite of what you want.
mgraczyk 4y ago
I would immediately quit any company that does universal paycuts. I assume the execs would also leave if you cut their pay more than they can get elsewhere. Best solution is to hire better next time, and fire underperformers or entire product organizations.

cableshaft 4y ago

> explore other options like universal paycuts I suspect that would just get all the best employees to leave pretty damn quickly, especially if other companies aren't doing paycuts. All for doing it for execs, though. Don't think you'll lose much by letting them jump ship.

hnthrowaway0315 4y ago

Universal pay-cuts basically angers everyone IMHO. Also cutting pays for Execs may not be enough (let's say one exec pay-cut = 5 layoffs).

strix_varius 4y ago

Hard pass on universal paycuts. That's a similarly bad idea to universal raises & promos - hiring & comp decisions should be made based on performance. As an EM, I would much rather get the opportunity to prune under-performing engineers than to have to tell every member of my team I'm cutting their comp, knowing that the best couple will leave quickly afterwards.

vaidhy 4y ago
As an EM, why do you have under-performing engineers on your team in the first place? Either your hiring bar is low, you are not giving enough feedback to improve or you are afraid to cut your losses. None of this needs you to wait for an opportunity to prune under-performers.
- metadat 4y ago
  Simple: Politics, optics, and pragmatism. Up to a point it's better to focus on growth and things you can actually fix rather than trying to trim the bushes.
  - strix_varius 4y ago
    Exactly.
- strix_varius 4y ago
  That's a naive perspective. An EM is not a king. The process for shedding an engineer is typically long and arduous - a quarter for coaching, then another for a "soft performance plan," and then another quarter for a PIP are not uncommon standard HR practices. God help you if your under-performer is based in, say, Germany. Regarding a hiring bar, typically an EM may have gotten some say in some of their people, but for the most part not. The suggestion that an EM "giving feedback" is sufficient to improve all employees to a high technical bar is hilarious. An EM needs to understand the organizational, political, and HR climate of their org. Use what leverage you have to deliver the most impact. Often, that means not going out of your way to expel mediocre engineers, but rather using your resources to propel the rest of your team members to success.
- SicSemperUranus 4y ago
  As a PO, how do I tell my boss he hired the wrong person and needs to up his budget by 25% and delay development by 2 months while we hire and onboard someone better? The answer is I don't, because I like my job. Upping all the estimates takes much less energy and is much safer than fighting someone's inflated ego.
jmathai 4y ago
The universal cut benefits those who would have been laid off as they're likely the ones who would be most concerned. I've seen this once and the ones who liked it were those who feared losing their jobs knowing it would be hard to find another.

umeshunni 4y ago

#2 is the worst idea ever. Instead of making 20% of (soon to be ex-)employees unhappy, let's make 100% of employees unhappy.

adra 4y ago
Those 100% of employees will be affected by the decision to shrink costs regardless of staying or being let go. I'd personally like what happened with one employer. They said there was budget issues and that anyone who wanted to go were offered to be let go with severance. The company is in a slightly worse position that they can't control who took them up on the offer, but it meant that everyone who stayed still wanted to be there and were dedicated to the company post cuts.
- scarface74 4y ago
  The people who stayed didn’t “want to be there because they believed in the mission” of a for profit company. They probably didn’t have any better alternatives.
dan_quixote 4y ago
Why not implement it with an improvement plan that restores the cut pegged to profit/revenue? You could even throw in a cash/stock bonus at some threshold and even a raise?

scarface74 4y ago

Universal pay cuts are the worse thing that a company can do. The best employees can get a job quickly and your lowest performers will tend to stay - the exact opposite of what you want.

mgraczyk 4y ago

I would immediately quit any company that does universal paycuts. I assume the execs would also leave if you cut their pay more than they can get elsewhere. Best solution is to hire better next time, and fire underperformers or entire product organizations.