5 ms·

> I take responsibility for those decisions, as well as the difficult decision to do this layoff. I had to stop reading. How can a human being be this tone dea

> I take responsibility for those decisions, as well as the difficult decision to do this layoff. I had to stop reading. How can a human being be this tone deaf? You know what's difficult, you great insensitive oaf? Getting laid off. Are you stepping down, Jeff? No? Then stop making it about you. To anyone who ever has to do lay-offs: this is a masterclass in what not to write.

ProAm 4y ago
> How can a human being be this tone deaf? You know what's difficult, you great insensitive oaf? Getting laid off. Would you rather him say we 'are letting go our lowest performers'?
- adamc 4y ago
  Yes. I would rather not sugarcoat reality.
  - ergocoder 4y ago
    This will reduce the chance of the laidoff employees of finding new jobs...
- cbozeman 4y ago
  Yes. It matters why they're being let go. Here's where, "I take full responsibility for:" is acceptable. "... dropping you because we automated your job away." <-- acceptable. "... dropping you because, frankly, you're not very good at your job." <-- extremely acceptable. Hell, I was even told this when I was 16 years old and working at a shitty second-rate Lowe's clone called Sutherland's (and he's right, I wasn't good at my job, I didn't give a shit about stocking shelves - I was always helping people). "... dropping you because I fucked up on judging the market and I gotta make sure the company stays attractive to investors." <-- not acceptable, also fuck you, also, you step down and appoint someone else. YOU fucked up. Not them. That's what "full responsibility" looks like. Responsibility isn't, "Oh I made a booboo, here's 3 months pay and some other shit..." Love him or hate him, Dr. Jordan Peterson is correct with some of his "rules of life", one of which is, "Tell the truth, or at least don't lie." When you say, "I'm taking full responsibility for this problem," that means you incur all negative consequences - and I do fucking mean - **ALL** negative consequences. Otherwise, just say, "These cuts are not ideal; unfortunately, they have to be made because I'm beholden to certain aspects of modern capitalism." That's what people want to hear. They don't want to hear platitudes that don't even make them feel good, but assuage the other person's conscience. If your conscience is bothering you, it's because you know what you're doing isn't right. You may still have to do it, but don't fucking be a shitbag about it. Don't spout out some lines that "sound" good at a cursory glance. Tell the truth, or at least don't lie.
  - junofan 4y ago
    This stuff just comes from templates. The templates optimize for people not freaking out. I wouldn’t read so much personal emotion into it.
    - cbozeman 4y ago
      "I wouldn't read so much personal emotion into it." Tell that to the son who wanted to go to baseball camp this year and can't now, or the daughter that wanted to have violin lessons and now Daddy or Mommy can't afford that. Your actions have consequences. Not just for you, but for others. To reduce it down to a goddamned template is not only insulting, but frankly deserves an old-fashioned jaw jacking.
- aprdm 4y ago
  It isn't true that it is the lowest performers.
- adam_arthur 4y ago
  Should just be honest about the mechanics and fundamentals of the situation. "We were too optimistic in our projections and overhired, thus we need to cut headcount to meet our goals." Anything else is just insulting to the intelligence of their employees
iLoveOncall 4y ago
> To anyone who ever has to do lay-offs: this is a masterclass in what not to write. The stock being up 10% today would like to disagree with your statement. There are no words that will make firing 11% of your workforce humane, so, yes, bullshit corporate newspeak is 100% appropriate.
InCityDreams 4y ago
>To anyone who ever has to do lay-offs: this is a masterclass in what not to write. Incorrect. To anyone who ever has to do lay-offs: this is a masterclass in what to write. Let's try and keep things honest, eh?
- aliqot 4y ago
  It's not okay for race or class to take any part in any hiring/firing/layoff decision.
  - ajg36 4y ago
    What about casting a part for a Dungeons & Dragons movie?
- thenewwazoo 4y ago
  Instead of simply negating and accusing me of being dishonest, perhaps you could expand a bit and explain why you disagree with me. From the site guidelines, > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
hammock 4y ago
Given what he did, what ought he have written instead?
- shane_b 4y ago
  there’s a zero percent chance people will be laid off and be happy. same with seeing people be laid off. there is no right thing to say
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    I know a handful of people who have been laid off. Each one was very angry about being laid off - it was unfair, the boss always had it in for me, etc. The ones I talked to a year later would ruefully admit it was a net positive for them. They were forced to reevaluate their careers and make corrections. One, for example, said it gave him the kick in the pants to start his own business, which he'd always wanted to do. Another told me it gave him the motivation for getting clean from drugs (the reason he was laid off was showing up for work high).
    - whatshisface 4y ago
      Companies laying people off are not doing well, and it is a lot easier to do well in an environment that is doing well.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        Being laid off is a lot less traumatic to people than getting fired, so layoffs are done to periodically let low performers go in a way that preserves their dignity, and makes it easier for them to get another job.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  He could have tried to direct the reader's sympathy towards the people getting laid off, rather than himself who is not going to suffer anything because of the decision he's making. If you are doing something nasty because of "just business," the minimum standard in corporate messaging you're expected to achieve is writing an announcement that is itself just business (and not a humanizing self-administered interview like you're getting an article in a magazine or something). All of the big corporations that you do not want to work for did not invent corporatespeak because they are uncreative or unwilling to engage with human emotions, they invented it because that is the least infuriating way to communicate that they're shutting down a division for offshoring.

ProAm 4y ago

> How can a human being be this tone deaf? You know what's difficult, you great insensitive oaf? Getting laid off. Would you rather him say we 'are letting go our lowest performers'?

adamc 4y ago
Yes. I would rather not sugarcoat reality.
- ergocoder 4y ago
  This will reduce the chance of the laidoff employees of finding new jobs...
cbozeman 4y ago
Yes. It matters why they're being let go. Here's where, "I take full responsibility for:" is acceptable. "... dropping you because we automated your job away." <-- acceptable. "... dropping you because, frankly, you're not very good at your job." <-- extremely acceptable. Hell, I was even told this when I was 16 years old and working at a shitty second-rate Lowe's clone called Sutherland's (and he's right, I wasn't good at my job, I didn't give a shit about stocking shelves - I was always helping people). "... dropping you because I fucked up on judging the market and I gotta make sure the company stays attractive to investors." <-- not acceptable, also fuck you, also, you step down and appoint someone else. YOU fucked up. Not them. That's what "full responsibility" looks like. Responsibility isn't, "Oh I made a booboo, here's 3 months pay and some other shit..." Love him or hate him, Dr. Jordan Peterson is correct with some of his "rules of life", one of which is, "Tell the truth, or at least don't lie." When you say, "I'm taking full responsibility for this problem," that means you incur all negative consequences - and I do fucking mean - **ALL** negative consequences. Otherwise, just say, "These cuts are not ideal; unfortunately, they have to be made because I'm beholden to certain aspects of modern capitalism." That's what people want to hear. They don't want to hear platitudes that don't even make them feel good, but assuage the other person's conscience. If your conscience is bothering you, it's because you know what you're doing isn't right. You may still have to do it, but don't fucking be a shitbag about it. Don't spout out some lines that "sound" good at a cursory glance. Tell the truth, or at least don't lie.
- junofan 4y ago
  This stuff just comes from templates. The templates optimize for people not freaking out. I wouldn’t read so much personal emotion into it.
  - cbozeman 4y ago
    "I wouldn't read so much personal emotion into it." Tell that to the son who wanted to go to baseball camp this year and can't now, or the daughter that wanted to have violin lessons and now Daddy or Mommy can't afford that. Your actions have consequences. Not just for you, but for others. To reduce it down to a goddamned template is not only insulting, but frankly deserves an old-fashioned jaw jacking.
aprdm 4y ago
It isn't true that it is the lowest performers.
adam_arthur 4y ago
Should just be honest about the mechanics and fundamentals of the situation. "We were too optimistic in our projections and overhired, thus we need to cut headcount to meet our goals." Anything else is just insulting to the intelligence of their employees

iLoveOncall 4y ago

> To anyone who ever has to do lay-offs: this is a masterclass in what not to write. The stock being up 10% today would like to disagree with your statement. There are no words that will make firing 11% of your workforce humane, so, yes, bullshit corporate newspeak is 100% appropriate.

InCityDreams 4y ago

>To anyone who ever has to do lay-offs: this is a masterclass in what not to write. Incorrect. To anyone who ever has to do lay-offs: this is a masterclass in what to write. Let's try and keep things honest, eh?

aliqot 4y ago
It's not okay for race or class to take any part in any hiring/firing/layoff decision.
- ajg36 4y ago
  What about casting a part for a Dungeons & Dragons movie?
thenewwazoo 4y ago
Instead of simply negating and accusing me of being dishonest, perhaps you could expand a bit and explain why you disagree with me. From the site guidelines, > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

hammock 4y ago

Given what he did, what ought he have written instead?

shane_b 4y ago
there’s a zero percent chance people will be laid off and be happy. same with seeing people be laid off. there is no right thing to say
- WalterBright 4y ago
  I know a handful of people who have been laid off. Each one was very angry about being laid off - it was unfair, the boss always had it in for me, etc. The ones I talked to a year later would ruefully admit it was a net positive for them. They were forced to reevaluate their careers and make corrections. One, for example, said it gave him the kick in the pants to start his own business, which he'd always wanted to do. Another told me it gave him the motivation for getting clean from drugs (the reason he was laid off was showing up for work high).
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    Companies laying people off are not doing well, and it is a lot easier to do well in an environment that is doing well.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Being laid off is a lot less traumatic to people than getting fired, so layoffs are done to periodically let low performers go in a way that preserves their dignity, and makes it easier for them to get another job.
whatshisface 4y ago
He could have tried to direct the reader's sympathy towards the people getting laid off, rather than himself who is not going to suffer anything because of the decision he's making. If you are doing something nasty because of "just business," the minimum standard in corporate messaging you're expected to achieve is writing an announcement that is itself just business (and not a humanizing self-administered interview like you're getting an article in a magazine or something). All of the big corporations that you do not want to work for did not invent corporatespeak because they are uncreative or unwilling to engage with human emotions, they invented it because that is the least infuriating way to communicate that they're shutting down a division for offshoring.