11 ms·

> It added more than 27,000 employees in 2020 and 2021, and added an additional 15,344 in the first nine months of this year—about a fourth of that in the most

> It added more than 27,000 employees in 2020 and 2021, and added an additional 15,344 in the first nine months of this year—about a fourth of that in the most recent quarter. So it basically doubled employee count in the last three years. Insanity.

bushbaba 4y ago
Only crazy as growth stalled. If it kept pace with prior years they’d of had doubled revenue in that time frame
- rossdavidh 4y ago
  Perhaps, but once you're as big as FB, you should be able to guess that your growth rate will inevitably slow. No company that big keeps growing at the same rate, or they'd take over the entire economy in short order. AT&T, GE, IBM, Dell, Microsoft, all had their growth rate slow as they got big. If FB was hiring on the assumption that it wouldn't happen to them, they were foolish to do so.
  - JamesianP 4y ago
    It's also a way to take advantage of high-priced stock while they can. Of course that doesn't mean they should hire recklessly and pay through the nose for people to do VR research or whatever that won't pay off this decade.
rossdavidh 4y ago
In some organizations, you want to hire big going into the hiring freeze, so that once the layoffs start (and you get told from higher up, "cut x%), you can keep the people you actually care about. Insanity from the point of view of the organization, but rational from the point of view of the mid-level manager. Don't know if this is what happened at FB, but it happens in some places.
- bhawks 4y ago
  Amazon actually has an 'unregretted attrition rate' metric that it holds managers to. Essentially they are expected to shed a percentage of employees annually. This metric gets gamed as "hire to fire" to keep your core team intact. https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/amazons-controversial-hire-to-fire-practice-reveals-a-brutal-truth-about-management.html https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/amazons-controversial-hire-to...
  - pcurve 4y ago
    "The problem is, that's not what's happening. Instead, Amazon managers are hiring people they otherwise wouldn't, or shouldn't, just so they can later fire them to hit their goal. " Oh god, this is horrific. :-/
    - piva00 4y ago
      And at the same time completely expected as per Goodhart's Law.
    - User23 4y ago
      Just to play devil’s advocate why is that horrific? Presumably the lack of transparency? Would it be morally acceptable if the hiring manager were honest about the scenario and the prospective employee knew to discount equity comp and focus on cash comp and being ready to find a new role? Edit: Consider if you were offered 200k per annum plus some irrelevant RSUs a year to be fired in 6 months, would you really be offended to take that 100k if you knew up front that those were the terms of the deal? Point being that the arrangement is only immoral if it's dishonest, otherwise it's just basically a gift for reasons that are perhaps odd, but within the giver's rights.
      - eropple 4y ago
        The devil really doesn't need more advocates.
        4y ago
paxys 4y ago
And when you consider the fact that pretty much every other tech company did the same wild overhiring in those same years, where did all this new talent suddenly show up from? The simple answer – it didn't. The companies just lowered their hiring bar wayyy down to fill quotas, and are now suffering because of it.
- JamisonM 4y ago
  If the marginal return per employee is still good then "lowering the bar" makes sense, not lowering the bar would be throwing money away - right? And during the pandemic certainly some of the new talent showing up was good, things changed and people stuck in jobs they were actually "too good for" moved on. I wouldn't assume it was "filling quotas" - it was filling positions and the positions existed for some reason, they were making a lot of money and there was probably more work to do!
  - stephc_int13 4y ago
    You have to keep in mind that in this type of organization, managers are highly incentivized to grow their teams, by all means. The number of people "under" you is the dick measuring tape.
    - manfre 4y ago
      At my last company, the team's budget for merit increases was based upon the size of the team. More headcount meant more money available for promotions and fixing historical pay imbalances. It was not a good system that directly caused good employees to leave.
      - stephc_int13 4y ago
        This size=power issue is in my opinion an often-underestimated flaw of organization relying on middle-management.
    - JamisonM 4y ago
      "Filling quotas" vs "hiring as many people as I can for clout" are different things and I suppose both are possible, but one imagines that both are enabled by the fundamental metric of generating revenue as justification. You hire ahead of growth, so you need to overcorrect when contraction occurs so it makes sense that if revenues are now shrinking so are the staffing levels.. it kinda feels like these explanations are projecting some weird politics on to very basic business logic.
techspider 4y ago
It's crazy phenomenon going on.. hiring people a lot and laying off them later.. Irony is these companies developing AI algorithms to analyse humans and their behaviours.. but failed to predict their workforce requirements..
- lob_it 4y ago
  Did it occur to you that the fired fodder trained the AI :p

bushbaba 4y ago

Only crazy as growth stalled. If it kept pace with prior years they’d of had doubled revenue in that time frame

rossdavidh 4y ago
Perhaps, but once you're as big as FB, you should be able to guess that your growth rate will inevitably slow. No company that big keeps growing at the same rate, or they'd take over the entire economy in short order. AT&T, GE, IBM, Dell, Microsoft, all had their growth rate slow as they got big. If FB was hiring on the assumption that it wouldn't happen to them, they were foolish to do so.
- JamesianP 4y ago
  It's also a way to take advantage of high-priced stock while they can. Of course that doesn't mean they should hire recklessly and pay through the nose for people to do VR research or whatever that won't pay off this decade.

rossdavidh 4y ago

In some organizations, you want to hire big going into the hiring freeze, so that once the layoffs start (and you get told from higher up, "cut x%), you can keep the people you actually care about. Insanity from the point of view of the organization, but rational from the point of view of the mid-level manager. Don't know if this is what happened at FB, but it happens in some places.

bhawks 4y ago
Amazon actually has an 'unregretted attrition rate' metric that it holds managers to. Essentially they are expected to shed a percentage of employees annually. This metric gets gamed as "hire to fire" to keep your core team intact. https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/amazons-controversial-hire-to-fire-practice-reveals-a-brutal-truth-about-management.html https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/amazons-controversial-hire-to...
- pcurve 4y ago
  "The problem is, that's not what's happening. Instead, Amazon managers are hiring people they otherwise wouldn't, or shouldn't, just so they can later fire them to hit their goal. " Oh god, this is horrific. :-/
  - piva00 4y ago
    And at the same time completely expected as per Goodhart's Law.
  - User23 4y ago
    Just to play devil’s advocate why is that horrific? Presumably the lack of transparency? Would it be morally acceptable if the hiring manager were honest about the scenario and the prospective employee knew to discount equity comp and focus on cash comp and being ready to find a new role? Edit: Consider if you were offered 200k per annum plus some irrelevant RSUs a year to be fired in 6 months, would you really be offended to take that 100k if you knew up front that those were the terms of the deal? Point being that the arrangement is only immoral if it's dishonest, otherwise it's just basically a gift for reasons that are perhaps odd, but within the giver's rights.
    - eropple 4y ago
      The devil really doesn't need more advocates.
      - 4y ago

paxys 4y ago

And when you consider the fact that pretty much every other tech company did the same wild overhiring in those same years, where did all this new talent suddenly show up from? The simple answer – it didn't. The companies just lowered their hiring bar wayyy down to fill quotas, and are now suffering because of it.

JamisonM 4y ago
If the marginal return per employee is still good then "lowering the bar" makes sense, not lowering the bar would be throwing money away - right? And during the pandemic certainly some of the new talent showing up was good, things changed and people stuck in jobs they were actually "too good for" moved on. I wouldn't assume it was "filling quotas" - it was filling positions and the positions existed for some reason, they were making a lot of money and there was probably more work to do!
- stephc_int13 4y ago
  You have to keep in mind that in this type of organization, managers are highly incentivized to grow their teams, by all means. The number of people "under" you is the dick measuring tape.
  - manfre 4y ago
    At my last company, the team's budget for merit increases was based upon the size of the team. More headcount meant more money available for promotions and fixing historical pay imbalances. It was not a good system that directly caused good employees to leave.
    - stephc_int13 4y ago
      This size=power issue is in my opinion an often-underestimated flaw of organization relying on middle-management.
  - JamisonM 4y ago
    "Filling quotas" vs "hiring as many people as I can for clout" are different things and I suppose both are possible, but one imagines that both are enabled by the fundamental metric of generating revenue as justification. You hire ahead of growth, so you need to overcorrect when contraction occurs so it makes sense that if revenues are now shrinking so are the staffing levels.. it kinda feels like these explanations are projecting some weird politics on to very basic business logic.

techspider 4y ago

It's crazy phenomenon going on.. hiring people a lot and laying off them later.. Irony is these companies developing AI algorithms to analyse humans and their behaviours.. but failed to predict their workforce requirements..

lob_it 4y ago
Did it occur to you that the fired fodder trained the AI :p