I like this perspective a lot. I just got laid off from a ~1.5k-employees private company that applied the same method to split up a large monolithic cash cow

I like this perspective a lot. I just got laid off from a ~1.5k-employees private company that applied the same method to split up a large monolithic cash cow (crafted from scratch by a small clique of hackers who met early in life) into microservice and microfrontend internal products because it looked like a good long term plan in Q2 of 2020 and we thought we could scale that forever and start selling our dog food as a service. Something went wrong, and we hit a ceiling very early. The amount of waste that was generated by the rigid management ecosystem that was created to sustain such a large scale up (for tracking purposes) became so strict that any and all attempts to use the scientific method to solve anything by the then-outnumbered engineering staff became impossible to justify to any non-engineering roles. If the task didn't fit in a 2 week sprint, it couldn't be planned. If it can't be planned to be shipped from scratch in a 2 week sprint, from analysis by both your BE and FE devs to both of them shipping at the same time by end of the sprint, it couldn't be done. If you needed to solve for "what do people wish they could buy?" instead of optimizing for "what are the most humans currently using?", it couldn't be done. We constantly regretted not sticking to our engineering principles. The system collapsed. A lot of nice-to-have-but-working-at-a-distance positions were eliminated, as well as a few individual contributors that management hadn't realized were important to their core functions but were hired too recently and didn't have time to adjust to the point system. I wish I could tell you what happened next, but the layoff happened. Most of us thought it would happen because management would finally realize the (human) system was designed poorly and without a good feedback loop while growth happened. But it turns out they might have only reverted to a previous commit of the organization structure and are still intent on trying again with the same rulebook. Slower but infinite growth is still the objective, excessive tracking is still the norm. Their marketing had been doing poorly in recent years, and the layoff wasn't even mentioned in the news, but it seemed like it affected a lot of devs in my neck of the woods despite the near complete lack of media coverage. Does this happen often? Is this what scaling up always looks like?