4 ms·

Fortunately I've never had to invoke blanket headcount cuts. But, as an employer, I've been given the advice "cut once, cut deep" many times. The theory (which

Fortunately I've never had to invoke blanket headcount cuts. But, as an employer, I've been given the advice "cut once, cut deep" many times. The theory (which I understand) is that employees get skittish once you get to a second or third cut. The author suggests some companies could stand a 50% cut if that is what is needed. This month though we've seen twitter cull 50% and twitter users, and customers (advertisers) became equally skittish. Do twitter employees feel safe? Does the "cut once, cut deep" have the desired effect here? Are customers reassured [1]? Maybe twitter is a unique case because of other factors - Elon? The fact that people can make their opinions heard on, well, twitter? The fact that other media are reliant on twitter traffic and buzz? My guess is that employ confidence after a round of layoffs is dependant on their faith in management to begin with, and the clarity of communication between management and staff. Perhaps a transparent financial reality helps employees understand that what they do affects the bottom line, and that line pays their salaries.

Psyonic 4y ago
yeah I think Twitter isn't useful here. Having a dramatic change of management + a layoff + serious product upheaval is definitely different than just a layoff. Now Elon is ending a policy literally called "Work From Home Forever" and with no flexibility -- back to the office 5 days a week. Why would an employee feel safe when literally everything about Twitter changed overnight?
- whymauri 4y ago
  And when the firing is coordinated by an outside party with little-to-no relevant expertise. It's hilarious that they immediately tried to hire back people they fired.
- lostcolony 4y ago
  Yeah, Twitter is basically a running case study in what not to do when it comes to acquiring a company successfully, and can't be held up as anything other than "what happens when you do everything wrong". Certainly, it's not a useful example for others, even as a warning, because you can't easily tell what bad actions led to what bad consequences; there are so many of both.
  - grog454 4y ago
    While I suspect you're right, isn't it a little early to conclude the acquisition wasn't successful? Who even knows what successful means in this case?
    - lostcolony 4y ago
      I didn't conclude it wasn't a 'successful' acquisition. Just a case study of what not to do. Even if it somehow ends up in a place it gets spun as being a success, only Elon fanboys are saying "4d chess! Brilliant!"; anyone with an ounce of sense recognizes how dumb everything about this has been.
      - 55555 4y ago
        You're being downvoted because it's too soon to judge so harshly. You may be just as biased in the opposite direction as the fanboys. There's been a lot of dumbness and silliness involved but it's pretty hard to assume that a random HN commenter is a better businessman than Musk.
        lostcolony 4y ago
        So that comment is currently sitting at 1, so upvotes balancing downvotes. The original +12. But I really don't care either way; to your point - even Musk didn't want to acquire Twitter once he sobered up to the fact he was in too deeply to pull out. It's just his brilliant business acumen meant he went into it waiving due diligence. Which, yes, this random HN commenter knows better than to do, for any company, let alone a social media company.
      - 331c8c71 4y ago
        > how dumb everything about this has been. Including pre-musk twitter as a directionless and weird company imo.
  - mjevans 4y ago
    Success might be difficult to define. If this produces the results that are desired by Elon and the investors then it's probably a success from their perspective. I worry if that's the case, it'll be like all the buy out, chop up, and liquidate value takeovers they made movies about.
- SamReidHughes 4y ago
  Knowing its financials, I would feel more "safe" after a 50% cut than a 25% cut. But why would we want employees to feel safe? They should feel like they need to produce value, or they'll get cut.
  - bruce511 4y ago
    You're being down-voted (not by me) because your point is both cynical, and common as a caricature of management. Employees need to feel safe because that improves their ability to focus on the job at hand. Employees that do not feel safe spend time updating their resume, playing office-politics games to make others look worse, spend time with other employees (detracting them) to either spread rumours or get gossip. In an unsafe environment, where the unsafty is internal, people don't "work harder" they work much less. If the risk is external, then yes, people can pull together for the common good. When covid started our staff accepted huge pay cuts so that all jobs could bd preserved. They did a fantastic job, and all ultimately got back-pay, and all jobs were preserved. But that was "us against the world" - cuts included management, and salaries returned from the bottom to the top, not the other way around.
    - quelltext 4y ago
      That sounds like a great employer. I only have anecdotal data but from recent discussions with friends who got laid off, they all lost trust in their company's leadership and losing arbitrary team mates has made them unhappy and reduced morale. I don't know if it's something special this time but if great teammates you worked with since before the pandemic are cut off while ones joining after and never having achieved or released anything remained (paraphrasing) does that. These layoffs seem haphazard.
      - rsj_hn 4y ago
        Higher management doesn't know who is productive and who isn't. The good lower-level managers have that visibility, and let's say the poor (or mediocre) managers don't. But whoever has that visibility, they would have already taken steps to get rid of underperformers and replace them with good performers. Therefore good managers have disproportionately good people. So when the senior management says "everyone lay 10% off", the good managers lay off good and bad people, and the poor managers lay off random people. The result is lots of good people get laid off, even if everyone is trying to avoid that.
- tdeck 4y ago
  The timeline also feels relevant here. The new CEO has only had a short time to really get to know the company. Who's to say that he won't cut more as he learns more and settles into his role? Combine that with the economic pressure and it looks pretty likely that either more people will be laid off or whole teams will be "managed out".
porb121 4y ago
> Maybe twitter is a unique case because of other factors - Elon? really, you think that a rapid change of leadership preceded by an extended legal battle is MAYBE a unique situation? Elon is very clearly one of the most erratic ceos of a 10b+ public company right now customers and employees are uncertain about the future because the ceo and controlling shareholder seems to change his mind every day about twitter's product, company culture, and general philosophy every single day. if he laid off nobody it would still be mayhem.
avemuri 4y ago
I doubt they feel safe, and twitter is a unique case. In general the cut once advice is not to make people less skittish immediately, it's to avoid the long term mistrust that comes from cutting repeatedly. When you do that, the message is you are either incompetent or you hid information from them the first time. A bigger one time cut is more shocking, but things settle down after and you have an opportunity to start building trust back up and put the company on an upward trajectory people will want to stay on.

Psyonic 4y ago

yeah I think Twitter isn't useful here. Having a dramatic change of management + a layoff + serious product upheaval is definitely different than just a layoff. Now Elon is ending a policy literally called "Work From Home Forever" and with no flexibility -- back to the office 5 days a week. Why would an employee feel safe when literally everything about Twitter changed overnight?

whymauri 4y ago
And when the firing is coordinated by an outside party with little-to-no relevant expertise. It's hilarious that they immediately tried to hire back people they fired.
lostcolony 4y ago
Yeah, Twitter is basically a running case study in what not to do when it comes to acquiring a company successfully, and can't be held up as anything other than "what happens when you do everything wrong". Certainly, it's not a useful example for others, even as a warning, because you can't easily tell what bad actions led to what bad consequences; there are so many of both.
- grog454 4y ago
  While I suspect you're right, isn't it a little early to conclude the acquisition wasn't successful? Who even knows what successful means in this case?
  - lostcolony 4y ago
    I didn't conclude it wasn't a 'successful' acquisition. Just a case study of what not to do. Even if it somehow ends up in a place it gets spun as being a success, only Elon fanboys are saying "4d chess! Brilliant!"; anyone with an ounce of sense recognizes how dumb everything about this has been.
    - 55555 4y ago
      You're being downvoted because it's too soon to judge so harshly. You may be just as biased in the opposite direction as the fanboys. There's been a lot of dumbness and silliness involved but it's pretty hard to assume that a random HN commenter is a better businessman than Musk.
      - lostcolony 4y ago
        So that comment is currently sitting at 1, so upvotes balancing downvotes. The original +12. But I really don't care either way; to your point - even Musk didn't want to acquire Twitter once he sobered up to the fact he was in too deeply to pull out. It's just his brilliant business acumen meant he went into it waiving due diligence. Which, yes, this random HN commenter knows better than to do, for any company, let alone a social media company.
    - 331c8c71 4y ago
      > how dumb everything about this has been. Including pre-musk twitter as a directionless and weird company imo.
- mjevans 4y ago
  Success might be difficult to define. If this produces the results that are desired by Elon and the investors then it's probably a success from their perspective. I worry if that's the case, it'll be like all the buy out, chop up, and liquidate value takeovers they made movies about.
SamReidHughes 4y ago
Knowing its financials, I would feel more "safe" after a 50% cut than a 25% cut. But why would we want employees to feel safe? They should feel like they need to produce value, or they'll get cut.
- bruce511 4y ago
  You're being down-voted (not by me) because your point is both cynical, and common as a caricature of management. Employees need to feel safe because that improves their ability to focus on the job at hand. Employees that do not feel safe spend time updating their resume, playing office-politics games to make others look worse, spend time with other employees (detracting them) to either spread rumours or get gossip. In an unsafe environment, where the unsafty is internal, people don't "work harder" they work much less. If the risk is external, then yes, people can pull together for the common good. When covid started our staff accepted huge pay cuts so that all jobs could bd preserved. They did a fantastic job, and all ultimately got back-pay, and all jobs were preserved. But that was "us against the world" - cuts included management, and salaries returned from the bottom to the top, not the other way around.
  - quelltext 4y ago
    That sounds like a great employer. I only have anecdotal data but from recent discussions with friends who got laid off, they all lost trust in their company's leadership and losing arbitrary team mates has made them unhappy and reduced morale. I don't know if it's something special this time but if great teammates you worked with since before the pandemic are cut off while ones joining after and never having achieved or released anything remained (paraphrasing) does that. These layoffs seem haphazard.
    - rsj_hn 4y ago
      Higher management doesn't know who is productive and who isn't. The good lower-level managers have that visibility, and let's say the poor (or mediocre) managers don't. But whoever has that visibility, they would have already taken steps to get rid of underperformers and replace them with good performers. Therefore good managers have disproportionately good people. So when the senior management says "everyone lay 10% off", the good managers lay off good and bad people, and the poor managers lay off random people. The result is lots of good people get laid off, even if everyone is trying to avoid that.
tdeck 4y ago
The timeline also feels relevant here. The new CEO has only had a short time to really get to know the company. Who's to say that he won't cut more as he learns more and settles into his role? Combine that with the economic pressure and it looks pretty likely that either more people will be laid off or whole teams will be "managed out".

porb121 4y ago

> Maybe twitter is a unique case because of other factors - Elon? really, you think that a rapid change of leadership preceded by an extended legal battle is MAYBE a unique situation? Elon is very clearly one of the most erratic ceos of a 10b+ public company right now customers and employees are uncertain about the future because the ceo and controlling shareholder seems to change his mind every day about twitter's product, company culture, and general philosophy every single day. if he laid off nobody it would still be mayhem.

avemuri 4y ago

I doubt they feel safe, and twitter is a unique case. In general the cut once advice is not to make people less skittish immediately, it's to avoid the long term mistrust that comes from cutting repeatedly. When you do that, the message is you are either incompetent or you hid information from them the first time. A bigger one time cut is more shocking, but things settle down after and you have an opportunity to start building trust back up and put the company on an upward trajectory people will want to stay on.