6 ms·
You assume that the folks receiving severance are actually "bad performers"; layoffs are not the kind of mechanism that cleanly separate "good" from "bad" perfo
by neon_electro 4y ago
You assume that the folks receiving severance are actually "bad performers"; layoffs are not the kind of mechanism that cleanly separate "good" from "bad" performers.
- rsanek 4y agoWell, when a company starts considering who to lay off, they're not gonna start with people who they think are rockstars. At worst those folks would get reassigned.
- foobiekr 4y agoOnly the first time and even then not really true. Reassignment assumes that reqs haven't previously been canceled as part of belt tightening in those other groups. Also, by layoff N, you're cutting meat unless you are a massively bloated company, which is somewhat rare this time around (unlike HP, Cisco, Sun, etc. in 2001).
- fallingknife 4y agoI work at a series B startup, and even we are bloated. It would be next to impossible not to be given the prevailing funding environment of the last 10 years.
- TimPC 4y agoWell considering that a large chunk of the layoffs were in recruiting and that you basically have a hiring freeze I am sure plenty of rockstar recruiters were nonetheless laid off.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jokethrowaway 4y agoDepends on their salary They're probably getting rid of the least effective per dollar spent (or trying to, good luck measuring anything, especially around productivity)
- commandlinefan 4y ago> actually "bad performers" Well, ok - "the most expendable" then.