3 ms·

Yeah, 5% is a small, manageable number. Small enough that if you find you accidentally cut important people or roles, you can quickly get them back. The point

Yeah, 5% is a small, manageable number. Small enough that if you find you accidentally cut important people or roles, you can quickly get them back. The point in my second paragraph is that if the company actually needs a 15% layoff to maintain itself long term, it would be safest to do it in three smaller 5% waves rather than one fell swoop. After each layoff, you let the system settle and recover, making sure that the body is still generally healthy before continuing with the next operation.

estebank 4y ago
> it would be safest to do it in three smaller 5% waves rather than one fell swoop This disregards the effect of repeated layoffs on the morale and mental health of human beings, which affects how "the system" settles and recovers.
- anonporridge 4y ago
  Absolutely! I think it really depends on the overall health and strength of the corporate body and the external environmental conditions it's struggling to survive in. Sometimes ripping off the bandaid quickly is the best of many bad options. However, you also have to consider that seeing a larger percentage of your teammates cut loose might be more psychologically damaging than just that one guy who everyone kind of knew was a poor performer anyway.
- gota 4y ago
  Part of the second and third wave can take the form of a hiring freeze or slowdown. People who quit are not replaced and soon you have a 5% reduction in headcount
  - Aperocky 4y ago
    Only the best (or the dauntless, but they are a minority) quit in the present climate, soon the corporation will have a 3-5% reduction in their best performers.
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    So you further evaporate the Dead Sea? How many competent people do you expect to stay until the end?
jvanderbot 4y ago
Generally speaking, they probably want about 5% loss / year, so they can continuously hire new starts and eliminate vacated positions as required.

estebank 4y ago

> it would be safest to do it in three smaller 5% waves rather than one fell swoop This disregards the effect of repeated layoffs on the morale and mental health of human beings, which affects how "the system" settles and recovers.

anonporridge 4y ago
Absolutely! I think it really depends on the overall health and strength of the corporate body and the external environmental conditions it's struggling to survive in. Sometimes ripping off the bandaid quickly is the best of many bad options. However, you also have to consider that seeing a larger percentage of your teammates cut loose might be more psychologically damaging than just that one guy who everyone kind of knew was a poor performer anyway.
gota 4y ago
Part of the second and third wave can take the form of a hiring freeze or slowdown. People who quit are not replaced and soon you have a 5% reduction in headcount
- Aperocky 4y ago
  Only the best (or the dauntless, but they are a minority) quit in the present climate, soon the corporation will have a 3-5% reduction in their best performers.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  So you further evaporate the Dead Sea? How many competent people do you expect to stay until the end?

jvanderbot 4y ago

Generally speaking, they probably want about 5% loss / year, so they can continuously hire new starts and eliminate vacated positions as required.