7 ms·
Last time they did this, it was _right_ after the window that they had grandstanded and asked other companies to pledge no pandemic layoffs. Benioff did a whol
by ubertaco 4y ago
Last time they did this, it was _right_ after the window that they had grandstanded and asked other companies to pledge no pandemic layoffs.
Benioff did a whole media tour talking about how Salesforce would do no pandemic layoffs to set some kind of example, and said that they didn't expect other companies to follow their example, but asked them to just pledge no layoffs for 90 days, even though Salesforce was going to do better than that.
Around 91 says later, Salesforce laid off 10% of the company, with no prior warning to the employees who were laid off. The atmosphere internally from the top down was outrage that any of the employees who were laid off would mention that they got laid off to their family/friends/coworkers, and that doing so was somehow a betrayal of "trust".
Brett Taylor, who was then the "co-CEO" (read: Benioff's cleanup crew and babysitter), led an all-hands a month or so later where they took no questions and referred to this as a "one-time reshaping exercise". Benioff slipped up and told MSNBC that this was an annual thing. Brett Taylor pretended not to know Benioff had said that, and acted like it never happened.
This all-hands was a full month after the all-hands that took place the same week as the layoffs. In that one, they took questions, but since all the questions were about the layoffs, they acted like nobody had submitted any questions and the Q&A host came up with some softball "what projects are you excited about"/"what's the biggest challenge with being a market leader" ego questions instead.
I didn't believe that it was "one-time" then, and today I've learned that I was right not to. I left before it became a habit, and have only been relieved to have left.
I wonder when the next annual 10% layoffs will happen at Salesforce? Because it's pretty much the only thing I'd trust them to do reliably at this point.
- prettychill 4y agoThe post pandemic layoff was nowhere near 10%
- ubertaco 4y agoMy sense of scale is a bit thrown. I think at the time with all the uncertainty and the inability to trust corporate leadership, I trusted the largest number I heard as internal scuttlebutt, which was 10%. The actual number was somewhere around 1,000 to 1,500 people, which was like 5% or something of the company. ...but was still 1,000 to 1,500 people.
- bombcar 4y agowell sounds like we can expect them next year. What I don’t understand is why they don’t stretch it out over the whole year - less than 1% a month could be relatively easily “hidden” even if people kinda know what is going on. Average churn might be lower than that, even. Which makes me think it’s performative and they WANT the shareholders to see it.
- kcplate 4y ago> less than 1% a month could be relatively easily “hidden” If your a public company it’s not hidden. Analysts are watching everything. A one time even might hit your stock and then it starts to recover soon after, but an ongoing event would raise suspicions of a deeper problem.
- mgkimsal 4y agomaybe they could start to move to more 'contract/project' folks, vs 'employees'. rotating short term contractors would be similar amount of 'churn' but might be seen as more strategic/focused investments vs having to grow headcount only to want/need to do layoffs regularly.
- mbesto 4y agoAlso, you make these announcements to appease analysts, not to be hidden from them.
- conductr 4y agoYeah I agree. Something about actions being louder than words here. I will say spreading it out creates a worse environment of fear from employees. It’s like pulling a bandaid off slowly. This way, the survivors know they’re safe for some period of time and can focus on longer term things. They likely feel that they can tread water performance wise and make it through the next year too. They can also approach their personal finances from an assumption of having a paycheck for the next year at least. These things are typically to address the under-performers and misfits that come with hiring thousands of people each year. It forces the business to reevaluate its needs based on its goals on a cadence. Otherwise you end up with a bunch of Milton’s in the basement (to use an Office Space reference).
- agentofoblivion 4y agoHe seems like the slimiest CEO imaginable. I have no data to back this up, just his constant woke clamoring, before woke dominated the culture, and the way he looks. My gut just instantly sets off alarm bells.
- dang 4y agoPlease don't cross into personal attack. You may not owe CEOs better but you owe this community better if you're participating in it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bajirao 4y agoAs an ex trailblazer I can confirm this. That all hands was unreal. Everyone was asking about layoffs on all-hands slack channel, and Mark/Brett were demoing upcoming new features in their Work.com product.
- gedy 4y agoYeah I really don't understand that style of "leadership". I'm no CEO, but even a simple blow off like this would be more effective: "I know everyone has a lot of questions and concerns about the recent layoffs, but since emotions are strong right now, we'll collect these and discuss them next time"
- ubertaco 4y agoSalesforce operates in a "zero-trust" environment, in that employees should place zero trust in the company, and the company places zero trust in the employees. It's just modern security practices! /s
- bajirao 4y agoWhereas _every_ internal Salesforce townhall type meeting starts with 'Trust is our #1 value'.
- steveBK123 4y agoCo-heads is always a subtext for executive disfunction. I don't think I've ever heard of it working out long term at any level from division co-head to co-CEO. It's also fascinating the opposite direction is also allowed to persist - the guy who is CEO of 4 companies at once. As a lowly high income IC, I am prohibited from almost any outside business activity and in some cases forced to divest when joining a new firm. Somehow the guy running the company who has actual ability to make conflicted decisions is allowed to moonlight? Fabulous.
- andsoitis 4y ago> Co-heads is always a subtext for executive disfunction. I don't think I've ever heard of it working out long term at any level from division co-head to co-CEO Don’t VC’s generally prefer that a startup has co-founders? Having such a team mate fosters better decisions, acts as cheerleader when one person is feeling down, etc. I don’t see a material difference between that and having a co-CEO setup… What do you think?
- NhanH 4y agoVC also strongly suggests that it is made clear one person is the CEO, so when push comes shove, some one can make a decision and things can be resolved. I remembered reading it is better to have 51/49 rather than 50/50 equity for that reason. Though to be honest I am not sure if I read that in the “good advices you should follow” or the “shitty toxic advices you should avoid”. Hard to differentiate sometimes.
- yojo 4y agoEven with co-founders, one of you is still the CEO. You need an executive function to set direction and unblock stupid territory squabbles. Someone whose decisions are final. If you have two actual CEOs, you don’t have that.
- steveBK123 4y agoSomeone has to be 51+% either way..
- dilyevsky 4y agoI think Silicon Valley (the show) did this