5 ms·

I've never seen a cold and calculated layoff. It's always been exasperated irrational arm-waving risk mitigation. The "good" people aren't kept - instead it's t

I've never seen a cold and calculated layoff. It's always been exasperated irrational arm-waving risk mitigation. The "good" people aren't kept - instead it's the ones that can navigate the political waters. For every one competent executive there seems to be 3 deluded narcissistic idiots who will slash and burn people who are overqualified and under-utilized for the positions they've been incompetently assigned. Now before you think I'm a victim of layoffs, I'm actually the political navigator. I constantly survive layoffs as I see the most talented people get let go and the best teams get broken up and reassigned, it's nuts. One of the best techniques is to get yourself into what I call a "management island" - essentially you have either 0 or many bosses, just not 1. The next one is to be associated with a small bet - essentially a cheap investment that may yield a great long-term payoff, preferably related to the company cash cow. A third technique is to not attend too many events. Vagueness works in your favor. People should know generally but not specifically what you do. With details comes critiques so keep it ambiguous by staying quiet. If you survive a layoff then you must not let a good crisis go to waste. Use the fog of the firing and the power vacuum to resituate yourself into this political dynamic as the dust settles. Of course these techniques only work at large companies. I learned all of these techniques from years in management. There's more but that's a good start

adasdasdas 4y ago
Yup, most mass layoffs are done without consulting the directly/skip managers who actually know who the strong performers are.
- kristopolous 4y ago
  No. Most layoffs are done by the managers being given either quotas or burn rate caps and tasked with producing lists of people to layoff. The point of "many bosses" is if your manager knows you work on other projects, it's easier to leave you off the list. The point of "no bosses" is no manager is tasked with considering you. You're not on anyone's books. There's numerous ways of doing this if you're interested. If you have to play the one boss game it's harder. Some managers will want to keep their most talented people, other managers are looking for team cohesion and want the most friendly while others will break their project into roles and then assign people on a sheet of paper into those roles and get rid of what they consider redundant. Some bosses will want to get rid of the most talented people on the logic that they probably have one foot out the door anyway and there's always a resignation aftershock after a layoff so might as well be seen as the one bold enough to do the cost cutting. Some bosses will want to get rid of their most expensive people on the logic that they'll have the easiest time finding other work or maybe they'll have to get rid of fewer when they're more expensive, while others might want to get rid of their cheapest with the logic that they'll be easier to replace in the future. There's really no silver bullet way to survive that. You have to know who is making the decision and somehow guess how they'll do it well in advance of the event so you can occupy a safe position in the mind of the decision maker. Almost nobody acts based on some objective logic, instead they have predictable patterns of behavior and varying modalities. That's why you need to shake the org structure and get out of that situation. If you want to insulate yourself from consideration, that's where the small bet team is in play. Preferably this is associated with the company cash cow. Let's say you work for Uber. A small bets team might be optimizing the UI using some behavioral techniques to nudge the users into picking higher margin options. The point here is the managers of managers will have a list of projects which will be sorted by some metric. You want to be at the bottom of that list and so even in the one boss model, your team may never be subject to layoffs. Being a small bet makes it subject to the rational choice theory paradox of the dollar auction: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_auction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_auction ... The manager of managers will hang on to the project using a sunk cost, but not a money pit, fallacy. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost) you want to be in a grey middle where you're not a cost of concern.
  - adasdasdas 4y ago
    At least in my circle, I've found (for mass company wide layoffs) 1. Lower level managers usually find out them at the same time as IC's 2. Managers and directors can be part of the layoffs. 3. If a manager/director is part of the layoff, they are even less likely to be consulted in the process.
    - kristopolous 4y ago
      Sure. That's because the org chart isn't ever the real chart. I mention elsewhere the real chart looks more like the Habsburg family tree especially the higher up you go - a bunch of surprising actual plays. The rule of thumb is if they can't fire you they aren't really your boss. For instance, at a previous firm, the COO, which ostensibly can be fired by the CEO was actually the brother of executor of the chief investment in the last round so the COO has a direct board connection and so he could actually fire the CEO with enough effort. Underneath the COO was a finance guy who had just come from a possible acquirer so really that guy could probably get them both fired if it meant a good payout for an acquire. The tendrils are wacky which is why when a room of those people have to do actual work, it's not some shrewd rational calculated execution but instead just some hot mess
  - jmholla 4y ago
    > The point of "no bosses" is no manager is tasked with considering you. You're not on anyone's books. There's numerous ways of doing this if you're interested. Can you speak more to this? I don't know that I've ever seen this somewhere I worked.
    - nunez 4y ago
      I've only heard of this happening during really large mergers or situations where you are managed by someone so high up in the organization, you're effectively on your own.
    - kristopolous 4y ago
      Sure. You can be entrusted to work on your own little bet project for somebody in a C suite and you become so low on the priority that you're out of mind. During a power vacuum, you can play teams off each other in a multiple bosses strategy and appeal upstream in the org chart. The exploit here is the company hierarchy in practice is closer to the Habsburg monarchy than some binary tree. The multiple boss play can get you to a no boss play in this situation because each one will assume you're doing important things on other projects. All of this requires a keen skill at social engineering. I worked at a place where I didn't have a meeting with anybody for about a year. I played the meetings off each other at first and they all slowly became optional and eventually I got them off my calendar. I should probably use my time doing better things but I'm really lazy. These are all hacks. YMMV.
dugmartin 4y ago
Good advice. It reads like the start of a modern corporate version of "The Prince".
- 0cf8612b2e1e 4y ago
  The modern version of this is the 48 Laws of Power.
mythhouse 4y ago
you should write a substack or a podcast. Lots of ppl are oblivious to this stuff.
- kristopolous 4y ago
  Most of the tricks are easily discoverable hacks. It's best not to advertise it too loudly
ZhadruOmjar 4y ago
Great write up and very useful in an industry where a lot of people seem to think "doing a good job" is enough to get recognised, lots of money and continuous promotions. The transition from IC into Management really needs a head shift and I think a lot of software engineers aren't prepared for the machinations of modern corps.
- kristopolous 4y ago
  I've gone in between both roles. I can be a CTO of a $50 million company and just another senior engineer at a $5 billion one. Probably the most approachable explanation of this phenomena is in Reid Hoffman's blitzscaling. I was looking for the diagram and I found it on some random blog https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/0*LDHDNGnfy2IJmIWE https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/0*LDHDNGnfy2IJmIWE Anyway, if we extend this analogy, I could be say, an important member of a village, but within a nation, I'm just another worker. His book is fine btw, get it used. He's just summarizing other authors who said things in more nuanced ways, whatever. I think this is totally reasonable for people who are not egoists. I can handle about a $10 million budget, but a billion dollar one, I don't look at with envy. Excuse my french, but fuck that level of responsibility. I'm only human. That's how you can know intuitively that the people who take it on are kinda special, and usually not in a good way. I've had to deal with lots of capital management and investment groups in my startup days and people that are senior execs at large firms. There's a couple brilliant ones but most are what I could best describe as neurodivergent. Understanding how they process information is crucial in securing that round of financing (unless you're lucky and in a hot industry) and in being on the safe side of their executive decisions.
  - DenisM 4y ago
    How do you position yourself when looking for a job? Divergent background of this sort could be a liability. And then you have to be explicit about what you want in your next role. Do you have two different resumes?
    - kristopolous 4y ago

adasdasdas 4y ago

Yup, most mass layoffs are done without consulting the directly/skip managers who actually know who the strong performers are.

kristopolous 4y ago
No. Most layoffs are done by the managers being given either quotas or burn rate caps and tasked with producing lists of people to layoff. The point of "many bosses" is if your manager knows you work on other projects, it's easier to leave you off the list. The point of "no bosses" is no manager is tasked with considering you. You're not on anyone's books. There's numerous ways of doing this if you're interested. If you have to play the one boss game it's harder. Some managers will want to keep their most talented people, other managers are looking for team cohesion and want the most friendly while others will break their project into roles and then assign people on a sheet of paper into those roles and get rid of what they consider redundant. Some bosses will want to get rid of the most talented people on the logic that they probably have one foot out the door anyway and there's always a resignation aftershock after a layoff so might as well be seen as the one bold enough to do the cost cutting. Some bosses will want to get rid of their most expensive people on the logic that they'll have the easiest time finding other work or maybe they'll have to get rid of fewer when they're more expensive, while others might want to get rid of their cheapest with the logic that they'll be easier to replace in the future. There's really no silver bullet way to survive that. You have to know who is making the decision and somehow guess how they'll do it well in advance of the event so you can occupy a safe position in the mind of the decision maker. Almost nobody acts based on some objective logic, instead they have predictable patterns of behavior and varying modalities. That's why you need to shake the org structure and get out of that situation. If you want to insulate yourself from consideration, that's where the small bet team is in play. Preferably this is associated with the company cash cow. Let's say you work for Uber. A small bets team might be optimizing the UI using some behavioral techniques to nudge the users into picking higher margin options. The point here is the managers of managers will have a list of projects which will be sorted by some metric. You want to be at the bottom of that list and so even in the one boss model, your team may never be subject to layoffs. Being a small bet makes it subject to the rational choice theory paradox of the dollar auction: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_auction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_auction ... The manager of managers will hang on to the project using a sunk cost, but not a money pit, fallacy. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost) you want to be in a grey middle where you're not a cost of concern.
- adasdasdas 4y ago
  At least in my circle, I've found (for mass company wide layoffs) 1. Lower level managers usually find out them at the same time as IC's 2. Managers and directors can be part of the layoffs. 3. If a manager/director is part of the layoff, they are even less likely to be consulted in the process.
  - kristopolous 4y ago
    Sure. That's because the org chart isn't ever the real chart. I mention elsewhere the real chart looks more like the Habsburg family tree especially the higher up you go - a bunch of surprising actual plays. The rule of thumb is if they can't fire you they aren't really your boss. For instance, at a previous firm, the COO, which ostensibly can be fired by the CEO was actually the brother of executor of the chief investment in the last round so the COO has a direct board connection and so he could actually fire the CEO with enough effort. Underneath the COO was a finance guy who had just come from a possible acquirer so really that guy could probably get them both fired if it meant a good payout for an acquire. The tendrils are wacky which is why when a room of those people have to do actual work, it's not some shrewd rational calculated execution but instead just some hot mess
- jmholla 4y ago
  > The point of "no bosses" is no manager is tasked with considering you. You're not on anyone's books. There's numerous ways of doing this if you're interested. Can you speak more to this? I don't know that I've ever seen this somewhere I worked.
  - nunez 4y ago
    I've only heard of this happening during really large mergers or situations where you are managed by someone so high up in the organization, you're effectively on your own.
  - kristopolous 4y ago
    Sure. You can be entrusted to work on your own little bet project for somebody in a C suite and you become so low on the priority that you're out of mind. During a power vacuum, you can play teams off each other in a multiple bosses strategy and appeal upstream in the org chart. The exploit here is the company hierarchy in practice is closer to the Habsburg monarchy than some binary tree. The multiple boss play can get you to a no boss play in this situation because each one will assume you're doing important things on other projects. All of this requires a keen skill at social engineering. I worked at a place where I didn't have a meeting with anybody for about a year. I played the meetings off each other at first and they all slowly became optional and eventually I got them off my calendar. I should probably use my time doing better things but I'm really lazy. These are all hacks. YMMV.

dugmartin 4y ago

Good advice. It reads like the start of a modern corporate version of "The Prince".

0cf8612b2e1e 4y ago
The modern version of this is the 48 Laws of Power.

mythhouse 4y ago

you should write a substack or a podcast. Lots of ppl are oblivious to this stuff.

kristopolous 4y ago
Most of the tricks are easily discoverable hacks. It's best not to advertise it too loudly

ZhadruOmjar 4y ago

Great write up and very useful in an industry where a lot of people seem to think "doing a good job" is enough to get recognised, lots of money and continuous promotions. The transition from IC into Management really needs a head shift and I think a lot of software engineers aren't prepared for the machinations of modern corps.

kristopolous 4y ago
I've gone in between both roles. I can be a CTO of a $50 million company and just another senior engineer at a $5 billion one. Probably the most approachable explanation of this phenomena is in Reid Hoffman's blitzscaling. I was looking for the diagram and I found it on some random blog https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/0*LDHDNGnfy2IJmIWE https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/0*LDHDNGnfy2IJmIWE Anyway, if we extend this analogy, I could be say, an important member of a village, but within a nation, I'm just another worker. His book is fine btw, get it used. He's just summarizing other authors who said things in more nuanced ways, whatever. I think this is totally reasonable for people who are not egoists. I can handle about a $10 million budget, but a billion dollar one, I don't look at with envy. Excuse my french, but fuck that level of responsibility. I'm only human. That's how you can know intuitively that the people who take it on are kinda special, and usually not in a good way. I've had to deal with lots of capital management and investment groups in my startup days and people that are senior execs at large firms. There's a couple brilliant ones but most are what I could best describe as neurodivergent. Understanding how they process information is crucial in securing that round of financing (unless you're lucky and in a hot industry) and in being on the safe side of their executive decisions.
- DenisM 4y ago
  How do you position yourself when looking for a job? Divergent background of this sort could be a liability. And then you have to be explicit about what you want in your next role. Do you have two different resumes?
  - kristopolous 4y ago