3 ms·

> If they meet 15% and keep the productivity alive then raise for some directors That cannot be true. If you fire 15% of your team and the productivity stays

by otikik 4y ago

> If they meet 15% and keep the productivity alive then raise for some directors That cannot be true. If you fire 15% of your team and the productivity stays about the same, you were wasting resources before. If some other guy was running a really lean team, and they have to fire 15%, they will be punished and you will get a raise. And you would be strongly motivated to hire more useless people that could act as a buffer in case there's another layoff round. I know, it's Meta, but they can't be that blind.

bin_bash 4y ago
This reminds me of how in the soviet union they would come up with a plan for what agriculture they wanted to grow. If they happened to be really good at growing, say, wheat, but really bad at, say, potatoes: they would deduce they needed to put more manpower into potatoes. Rather than what they should have done which was lean into their ability to grow wheat better and just live with potato shortages. (I'm no historian so I might be characterizing this badly, I admit)
lostcolony 4y ago
> That cannot be true. > I know, it's Meta, but they can't be that blind. You've not actually seen the kinds of decisions corporations execute on in the interests of shareholder value, have you? Tech companies are better at using data to drive their decisions than non-tech companies; they are no better at using data -sensibly-. If this actually happens (it's Blind), with the policy listed (it's Blind), the rationale is quite easy to explain - clearly, the one whose productivity didn't suffer -fired the right people-. The one whose productivity suffered -fired the wrong people-. The option you present, that some teams are actually sufficiently lean already, runs against the broad generality the CEO gave of "too many employees, but few work", ergo it can't be true.

3 ms·

> If they meet 15% and keep the productivity alive then raise for some directors That cannot be true. If you fire 15% of your team and the productivity stays

by otikik 4y ago

bin_bash 4y ago
This reminds me of how in the soviet union they would come up with a plan for what agriculture they wanted to grow. If they happened to be really good at growing, say, wheat, but really bad at, say, potatoes: they would deduce they needed to put more manpower into potatoes. Rather than what they should have done which was lean into their ability to grow wheat better and just live with potato shortages. (I'm no historian so I might be characterizing this badly, I admit)
lostcolony 4y ago
> That cannot be true. > I know, it's Meta, but they can't be that blind. You've not actually seen the kinds of decisions corporations execute on in the interests of shareholder value, have you? Tech companies are better at using data to drive their decisions than non-tech companies; they are no better at using data -sensibly-. If this actually happens (it's Blind), with the policy listed (it's Blind), the rationale is quite easy to explain - clearly, the one whose productivity didn't suffer -fired the right people-. The one whose productivity suffered -fired the wrong people-. The option you present, that some teams are actually sufficiently lean already, runs against the broad generality the CEO gave of "too many employees, but few work", ergo it can't be true.