3 ms·
With the exception of companies going under or closing divisions or departments what kind of companies shave off “high performers”? Sure some high performers c
by mc32 4y ago
With the exception of companies going under or closing divisions or departments what kind of companies shave off “high performers”? Sure some high performers could erroneously slip trough but the intent is predominantly to lay off poor performers (sometimes high earners or older employees, but not usually)
- IshKebab 4y agoIt's pretty normal to close entire teams or departments. That includes high performers.
- smnrchrds 4y agoOr downsize them due to a change in business priorities.
- bri3d 4y agoLayoffs can be horizontal (cut departments or divisions) or vertical (rank and cut the bottom). In horizontal layoffs, usually a lot of talented people and even turn-key teams are available on the market. Sometimes companies try to turn horizontal layoffs vertical by offering internal mobility for high performers from the cut teams, but sometimes they don’t. Publicly stating that layoffs are purely vertical is very bad for the employees who are laid off as they no longer re-apply with the “benefit of doubt” that they may have been caught as collateral damage in horizontal layoffs.
- hinkley 4y agoLayoffs are often about retrenching on verticals we think we can turn a profit on. If decreasing your overhead by 5% makes or breaks your company then you don’t have a viable business model. You can have plenty of people who are very good at a skill you either don’t need or have an oversupply of bus numbers on. At least a third of the people in any group you shut down completely are going to have been good people. More than half if the problem was in management (which is usually is). You’re dunking on these people and telling the rest of the universe not to hire them. But we already knew Google was shitty so this isn’t exactly news.
- GenerocUsername 4y agoShaving 5% of overhead can absolutely make or break a company.
- hinkley 4y agoGoing from default dead to default alive is huge. But a 3% profit margin just keeps you alive until some disaster occurs and then you’re still dead. Going from 5% to 10% might be leverage in the market, but you were still going to limp along anyway. When I’ve been at startups trying to do things like this, it’s very clear that the investors have in their head some notion of multiplying your profits. Every company I worked for that pulled this ended up cutting to the bone later. I don’t think that’s a coincidence. These days I’m not sure labor is a big enough part of the cost mix for a 10% layoff to actually show up as 5% margin. I pulled that out of my butt and now I’m having second thoughts.
- whateveracct 4y agoLayoffs are because management screwed up. It's blame-shifting. And let's not act like you can actually truly quantify employee performance generally. It's largely guesswork and politics in the hands of the said management-who-screwed-up doing the layoffs.
- soperj 4y agoThis is Bain Capitals MO actually. The whole point is to layoff the highest paid people and have the company coast along on previous momentum, making the profit look better so they call sell it off.
- ivalm 4y agoI assure you alphabet isn’t looking for a buyer.
- soperj 4y agoNot what I was suggesting. I was directly answering a question from the parent poster: "With the exception of companies going under or closing divisions or departments what kind of companies shave off “high performers”? "
- sbarre 4y agoHow is this relevant to Google's plans in this case?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- xboxnolifes 4y agoThe question being answered did not involve Google at all.
- soperj 4y agoI'm directly replying to someone asking this question: "With the exception of companies going under or closing divisions or departments what kind of companies shave off “high performers”? "
- diydsp 4y agoSell it off... and/or offer dividends until it depletes
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y agoIBM is in trouble for laying off older people; many of whom, were exceptionally high performers.