4 ms·

“Quiet layoff” is totally a thing. Back in the 2000’s when I worked for a Fortune 500 software shop, I feel like it had a different name. If Meta is trying th

“Quiet layoff” is totally a thing. Back in the 2000’s when I worked for a Fortune 500 software shop, I feel like it had a different name. If Meta is trying the same thing, then they’re pretty incompetent. The idea was to “resource action” workers in small percentages over an extended period. That keeps you out of the news. It totally defeats the purpose to layoff 15% percent or whatever over a short period! That gets you in the news. The goal of a “quiet layoff” is to keep it quiet! Thanks NY Post for the “quality journalism”. You could have addressed all this and you didn’t (the content-mill is based on quotas, don’t ya know?)

sokoloff 4y ago
Layoffs suck, but I’m pretty convinced that it’s far better to cut deep, cut once, and then start to repair/rebuild/move ahead than to drag out a slow, chaotic reduction over 6-12 months. Those prolonged morale sinks encourage a lot of your employees with the most options to leave on their own. That’s usually not what you want.
- coredog64 4y ago
  Layoffs over a certain size bring legal obligations like WARN Act filings. In some sectors, employers just eat the cost and walk people out on the day of but leave them on payroll for the required legal period. However, if you’re really concerned about costs, you can still squeeze something out of an employee on notice.
- fuzzfactor 4y ago
  That's what Exxon and Shell did a while back. >thousands of employees getting pink slips Before they raised the dividend.
- lloydatkinson 4y ago
  What do these slow 6/12 month reductions look like? I have a feeling this is happening where I work due to morale destroying team reshuffles every 5 or 6 months.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    There's a spectrum of approaches, but I often see them starting as "hiring slowdowns, then 'all backfills need specific approval', then hiring freezes, often coupled with teams merging or being shuffled around. It's not that any individual of those things are bad decisions or terrible omens, but in combination or series of increasing pressures, they combine to become bad omens and, if left unaddressed, tend to accelerate the attrition of some employees with more options for employment, which leads to more team combinations/shuffling. The other, even worse IMO, path to slow reductions is "managing out a few underperformers over here", then "managing out a few underperformers over there", then "eliminating some roles in a product that isn't our core focus over here", then "closing down this group over here because reasons". Those series of small, involuntary terminations are a much stronger signal to be updating LinkedIn and your resume, IMO.
thedougd 4y ago
IBM wrote the book on it.

sokoloff 4y ago

Layoffs suck, but I’m pretty convinced that it’s far better to cut deep, cut once, and then start to repair/rebuild/move ahead than to drag out a slow, chaotic reduction over 6-12 months. Those prolonged morale sinks encourage a lot of your employees with the most options to leave on their own. That’s usually not what you want.

coredog64 4y ago
Layoffs over a certain size bring legal obligations like WARN Act filings. In some sectors, employers just eat the cost and walk people out on the day of but leave them on payroll for the required legal period. However, if you’re really concerned about costs, you can still squeeze something out of an employee on notice.
fuzzfactor 4y ago
That's what Exxon and Shell did a while back. >thousands of employees getting pink slips Before they raised the dividend.
lloydatkinson 4y ago
What do these slow 6/12 month reductions look like? I have a feeling this is happening where I work due to morale destroying team reshuffles every 5 or 6 months.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  There's a spectrum of approaches, but I often see them starting as "hiring slowdowns, then 'all backfills need specific approval', then hiring freezes, often coupled with teams merging or being shuffled around. It's not that any individual of those things are bad decisions or terrible omens, but in combination or series of increasing pressures, they combine to become bad omens and, if left unaddressed, tend to accelerate the attrition of some employees with more options for employment, which leads to more team combinations/shuffling. The other, even worse IMO, path to slow reductions is "managing out a few underperformers over here", then "managing out a few underperformers over there", then "eliminating some roles in a product that isn't our core focus over here", then "closing down this group over here because reasons". Those series of small, involuntary terminations are a much stronger signal to be updating LinkedIn and your resume, IMO.

thedougd 4y ago

IBM wrote the book on it.