3 ms·

I would suggest that you interpreted Mark's statement that "there are probably a bunch of people at the company who shouldn’t be here" without considering it in

I would suggest that you interpreted Mark's statement that "there are probably a bunch of people at the company who shouldn’t be here" without considering it in the context of the other statement: he warned that a recent slump in the markets “might be one of the worst downturns that we’ve seen in recent history He and his team is doing exactly what public company management is supposed to do during challenging times, provide better shareholder value. The only real other strategy in cases like we're seeing is to just pull an IBM and fire 45,000 people in one week. Which strategy would you prefer?

ironlake 4y ago
>Which strategy would you prefer? They actually teach this in business school. Laying off bunches of people triggers regulatory compliance which can limit hiring and other stuff. Announcing layoffs without actually doing them causes the best to leave, the expert strap-hangers to entrench, and the people in the middle to become less focused. The accepted strategy is to cut as deeply as you need to cut to get through the downturn, then get back to business. Do it fast, do it deep, do it once. Zuck chose to turn the workplace into a low-stakes Hunger Games. No one needs another reason to dislike Facebook, but Zuck gave us another one.