9 ms·

So Good They Can't Lay You Off

54 points by impish9208 4y ago

seltzered_ 4y ago
An industry term I used to hear was 'golden handcuffs', but that was didn't necessarily mean being 'so good' over rather some culture of corporate politics.
DieBruderBauer 4y ago
M$FT laid off 10K workers while it boasted record-breaking profits. Sure they'll try to justify it. Doens't make it _not_ obscene.
- Guthur 4y ago
  Exactly, and none of this has to be this way, we chose this existence.
- MuffinFlavored 4y ago
  at what point is a business allowed to be a business and run itself for profit (even more than it is making now) without being “judged” for the mean stuff it has to do? it isn’t personal that it gave people a job and then took it away they don’t owe it to anybody to sacrifice their profit so others can have a job
  - kevinh 4y ago
    A company can run itself without regard for anything but profit. That's been a winning strategy for quite a while now. There's no amount of money they can make that will prevent them being judged for it though. No one owes a company good will.
  - nickpeterson 4y ago
    By that rationale they should open payday loan centers in low income neighborhoods, why not?
  - lazyasciiart 4y ago
    At the point where it doesn't have "profit" in the mission statement.
    - klyrs 4y ago
      Says it right up front: "do no evil." But to a capitalist, the greatest evil is losing money.
  - klyrs 4y ago
    > at what point is a business allowed to be a business and run itself for profit (even more than it is making now) without being “judged” for the mean stuff it has to do? Never. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, losing homes, filling prisons. The majority stockholders are of the CEO class. They aren't in any danger of life-impacting loss if they have a lick of financial sense. Dividends to the cronies and axe to the peasants is never going to be popular with anybody but cronies and bootlickers.
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    Anyone can be judged for anything. It's always interesting that some focus more on those who speak their minds about something than the actual actions taken that are being criticized, as if the real problem is people having opinions and speaking freely about them. It feels like the root sentiment is "X can do whatever they want, but you're not allowed to do the same by saying anything about it."
- x86x87 4y ago
  Salesforce did this way before anyone else, during the actual pandemic. M$FT has been quietly doing this for eons. It's just that they are good at doing this without laying off a massive number of people at a time. So for M$FT this layoff seems like it's about posturing and being "in line" with the market, which makes it even crappier than it really is.
derekp7 4y ago
One way to think of this is take a look back at the previous positions you've held, then left. Did any of those companies go out of business because you left? Were they (or the department) seriously injured? Now, ask yourself if they knew they would have major issues to overcome if you left. If they didn't, then even if they fell apart when you departed, then there was nothing stopping them from laying you off if a strong enough reason came about. If, however, they realized how bad things would be if you were gone, then they were negligent by not hiring redundancy. What you need to do is make yourself as valuable to the company as you are willing to do (avoid burning yourself out though). Make sure you have a deep enough emergency fund, and enough expenses that you can cut to survive an extended unemployment. Chances are that if you are part of a mass layoff, that won't reflect as badly on you as if you got fired for other reasons. And if there is a severance package, don't panic right away -- you have time to address the situation properly. Oh, and if you have enough time off before you land your next position, make sure you take care of yourself. The lack of work stress will do wonders to re-energize you, making you perform at a higher level at the next gig and hopefully exceed expectations (thereby setting you up for promotions etc).
GauntletWizard 4y ago
Nobody's so good that they can't be laid off, because layoffs are rarely about function or skill. Layoffs are mostly political; They're about which parts of the company are successful as a whole viewed by the CEO. You can be so good that the business will fail without you[1], but you cannot be so good that the business cannot lay you off. [1]though that itself should be a firing offense; It's impossible to tell that from "job security through code obscurity" and the latter should be assumed.
vichu 4y ago
As far as I can tell from anecdotal reports by friends at some of these companies, many of these tech layoffs have been done with little rhyme or reason - at least with regard to technical skill, individual contribution, and team cohesion. There's inklings of metrics that the suits decided on, but it is murky and unclear. It seems like few to no people in any of their managerial chains were consulted. I'm curious to hear from HNers if any of you were in the room that got to decide who got to stay and who had to go.
- tehlike 4y ago
  The no consulting is intentional. Things leak too fast otherwise.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    Also, semi-blindly firing based on some opaque metrics doesn’t open you up to wrongful termination or discrimination lawsuits.
    - tehlike 4y ago
      Exactly. Also good from laid-off person pov (considering...) as if it were just performance metric, most people wouldn't be able to get hired, or even considered for interview...
- tra3 4y ago
  > many of these tech layoffs have been done with little rhyme or reason - at least with regard to technical skill, individual contribution, and team cohesion. There's inklings of metrics that the suits decided on, but it is murky and unclear. Maybe it’s even simpler. We all complain about the interview process, but it doesn’t end there does it? The management kinda knows what you’re doing but at a very high level. The management has no idea how productive John is vs how productive jack is, unless jack is actively unpleasant to work with. Maybe it just turns into another kind of social popularity contest.
- jeffbee 4y ago
iLoveOncall 4y ago
There is literally nothing of substance in this article.
- vsskanth 4y ago
  I agree
- Spooky23 4y ago
  I disagree. When someone gets laid off there’s different emotional responses. Sadness, anger, guilt, wtf, etc. Look at it as a narrative of how someone’s journey in their mind progressed after a major event. There’s no such thing as “so good they can’t lay you off” - that’s the point. The authors conclusion is that focusing on what you offer versus what you can lose, you’re never lost.
  - iLoveOncall 4y ago
    That's fine, and it's also fine to share it on HN, but the title should reflect that it's just an introspection post layoff rather than a more researched article.
iambateman 4y ago
No one - no one - is irreplaceable. Long after you leave, your organizations will continue on, as they should. Counterintuitively, trying to be irreplaceable will hamper your ability to share information, power, and credit. It’s much better to just be as generous as you can.
- grogenaut 4y ago
  I've encountered several people who tried to do this... all of them were not as smart as they thought they were. I got 3 of the four to stop by saying "after we fire you I'll just have [the two smartest people they know] spend a month on your system do you think they'll figure it out"... they were like "yeah you're right" and became a lot more productive... the 4th we had to let go and it took about a month.
  - peepeepoopoo3 4y ago
    You must be a very popular manager at the office.
    - grogenaut 4y ago
      I'm not a manager, I'm a lead / pe. This is over 22 years that it's happened 4 times. 2 were at drinks and 2 were at mentoring sessions, all 4 were kinda struggling and looking for a safety net.
    - jonathankoren 4y ago
      It depends. If someone is feint am asshole and tearing down the team, a “knock it off or else” approach is certainly a reasonable response, especially if done privately.
- _lazlo 4y ago
  [dead]
- rconti 4y ago
  For bus factor reasons, it could be considered better to make sure you get rid of 'irreplaceable' people at equal rates as everyone else.
pyrolistical 4y ago
You need to be providing obvious alpha (positive return on investment) and you won’t be fired On the flip side you need to reduce your alpha to maximize your own personal compensation. This ends up in a balancing act. Don’t play it too safe.
- lance_klusener 4y ago
  Can you elaborate - You need to reduce your alpha ? Are you referring to - Reduce ones expenses?
heavyset_go 4y ago
No one is so good that they can't be laid off. The entire point of the way production is practiced is to ensure that labor fungible. To think otherwise is an exercise in ego stroking.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  You are a mercenary. Who you work for and the work itself are inconsequential, and you could be out the door at a moment's notice. It is not a family, and the job is never going to love you back. Do not get emotionally invested. You will suffer. It is not about being good. Good people (exceptional people even) get laid off and fired too. Rather, be "So Prepared You Head To The Pub and DGAF, The New Gig Starts Monday." Low burn rate, substantial emergency fund, robust retirement and investment accounts, being able to negotiate from a position of power, professional network to rely on, etc.
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    Yup, that's mentality I take. I'm aware of how precarious employment is and prepare as if my paycheck from one client/employer is my last from them. Watched way too many people suffer who thought otherwise, I'm not going to make that same mistake.
- gitfan86 4y ago
  Sales people are the exception to this. If a salesperson has a 10M deal that he is about to close within the next 6 months, it is a really bad idea to fire him, since he will probably tell the customer that your company isn't that great.
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    Every employment contract I've signed, or that I can at least remember, stipulated that you can be sued if you interfere with their client relationships after leaving. Agree with you that it's a bad idea to axe liaisons while deals are going through, but at the same time clients agreeing to deals at that stage will probably still see them through despite their sales contacts leaving.
scarmig 4y ago
At least at a big company, RIF decisions are made at higher levels than anyone who knows anything about you or your work. Obviously people on PIP are in trouble, but beyond that there's not much you can do, unless you're Jeff Dean level. I know two people at Google who were slotted for T (transformative) and O (outstanding) GRAD ratings who were laid off, along with their entire teams. There's only so much you can do.
- mjr00 4y ago
  > I know two people at Google who were slotted for T (transformative) and O (outstanding) GRAD ratings who were laid off, along with their entire teams. There's only so much you can do. There's only so much you can do, but developers and other ICs often turn a blind eye to the actual wider business. Sometimes it's exceedingly obvious that the business unit, company, or even wider industry as a whole that you're working in is on a downward spiral, but people won't or can't recognize it. The writing was on the wall for Twitter for many years. Alexa and Echo were clearly massive busts for many years. If you're still at a crypto company in 2023, you pretty much have to have resigned to just coasting until the inevitable layoff or company bankruptcy. If you're at Meta working on Metaverse/VR, don't say I didn't warn you when you get your layoff notice in a year or two. If you want to avoid being laid off, join a company that makes money, and make sure you're in the part of the company that actually makes money. The crazy new tech and R&D groups might be the most fun, but they're also going to be the first to get slashed.
  - scarmig 4y ago
    For the concrete situation I mentioned above, they were in a part of Google that was profitable, but just not profitable enough. (The Google graveyard is going to have a lot more tombstones over the next couple months.) But, yeah: all other factors being equal, it's always better to join a company that's making money in the org that makes the most money.
    - mjr00 4y ago
      for sure. If I were at Google or Meta right now and not part of something that directly impacts ad sales, I would start looking for a new job.
officialchicken 4y ago
So good you OWN the company is the only safe way. It's true. Build something awesome - build something people want.
- eduction 4y ago
  Owning a company is safe? Not at all. It might not be called a “layoff” but you can sure fail at it. Also, you can maybe build something people want today but we can’t predict what the future will bring. It is comforting to think we have some influence on our fate. But also comforting (more comforting, I think) to let go of the illusion that we have control.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  If you take other people's money to run a business, those people can run you out if they feel you're a detriment to their investments. Investors can afford legal battles, and if you're taking other people's money, chances are you won't be able to outspend them in court.
29athrowaway 4y ago
Employee A: documents all work, delivers documentation, cares abour business continuity, helps others, thrives in transparency Employee B: withholds information, accumulates information, excludes others, exploits information asymmetry, selfish fuck, thrives in obscurity Who is more likely to be laid off? Employee A This is why frequent layoffs create companies of parasitic unethical toxic jerks. So a lot of people not being laid off are not "good", but rather just unethical parasites.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  Employee B will be put in a "it's time to train your replacement" scenario and will be let go. Employee B would have probably been dealt with way before layoffs, as well. Relying on an oracle is a roadblock that will have, at the very least, annoyed anyone who had to work with them. That oracle is an easily recognizable bottleneck. No one is safe from layoffs.
neilv 4y ago
For software engineering orgs, I try to push a practice of lightweight effective internal documentation. Part of my argument sometimes -- to handle objections about job security from keeping info in one's head -- has been that people shouldn't worry about it hurtig job security, because the people who are conscientious about documenting will be recognized as too good of engineers to lose. But when we're seeing a frenzy of layoffs across the industry (even by companies making huge profits), it's harder to say that job security isn't a concern. (I'll still push on documentation, because it's important good practice for the team's success, and we're doomed if individuals start thinking they need to hoard the company's knowledge. But I'll have to be thinking of better ways that people's livelihood interests can be covered.)
- boojums 4y ago
  Do you have any more information on "lightweight effective documentation"? I never seen it work in practice. If there is a method thay has worked for you I would be keen to hear.
vsskanth 4y ago
I sometimes wonder if these seemingly random layoffs at top tech companies, irrespective of whether they were high performers would cause reputational damage to a level where they would have to pay even more money the next time they need to hire talent. I'm assuming top tier talent isn't going to want to work for you if you're gonna be randomly laid off, not to mention people on work visas who need to maintain a job to stay.
- voakbasda 4y ago
  I agree this does not help their reputation. Indeed, I would define “top” tech companies as those competent enough to avoid these kind of layoffs. This kind of move comes from a business that instead has grown fat and lazy. The best companies remain hungry and nimble.
throwaway98797 4y ago
if you’re sooo good they can’t lay you off, that means you’re too good to get promoted too.
thewebcount 4y ago
Many years ago Chris Espinosa (Apple Employee #8) gave a talk at MacHack about how to stay in a job at Apple for so long. (This would have been around 2000 and he had been there since the 70s.) His conclusion was that you should be obscure but irreplaceable. That is do something that nobody else understands, but that is necessary to keep things running. Seems to have worked for him!
- AtlasBarfed 4y ago
  Aka document nothing
partiallypro 4y ago
Everyone being replaceable is a concept that is emotionally hard to wrap your head around, especially when you're the one being replaced, but it is undoubtedly true. Even Caesar was replaced, I think they can replace a programmer or PM/AM, etc. That being said, I did leave my previous company for a better opportunity and am on occasion reached out to from that company or even that company's own customers for assistance on specific items. Still replaceable, but there is learned knowledge that can be a deficit for a while or even forever, especially if it is simply not profitable to have someone learn it or it exists without maintenance for so long that no one remembers or knows how to fix/remedy if it ever does need maintenance.
- docandrew 4y ago
  “Even Caesar was replaced” -very insightful! It’s always humbling to be in a position where you think “there’s no way this place will survive without me” but it seems like the show goes on, no matter what.
  - davidgay 4y ago
    > “Even Caesar was replaced” -very insightful! Though when the replacement requires a civil war, it may be a step too far for most companies (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberators%27_civil_war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberators%27_civil_war)...
- dilyevsky 4y ago
  > The cemeteries of the world are full of indispensable men - Charles de Gaulle
mberning 4y ago
Absolutely not. You have to understand how indiscriminate and capricious layoffs often are, especially for large organizations. Frequently the criteria for a layoff is crafted first in foremost with the goal of not being sued for discrimination. I worked for a very large, very well known global industrial giant. When the economic winds were too unfavorable they cooked up a layoff that was based entirely upon where the employee was located, and whether it was aligned with their "site strategy". So if you sat in the wrong location, you were gone, regardless of how good you were. They actually laid off one of the best and most valuable engineers that I ever worked with.
flappyeagle 4y ago
On the one hand, the severance packages at all of these places are so generous that I would want to get laid off in order to work on side projects, take a vacation, play with some startup ideas... Maybe that's why I don't work at any of these places. I'm sure many of these folks are dependent on their very high salaries to maintain their lifestyle, but seems like a golden opportunity for some temporary freedom that we're not often afforded in the USA.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
Yes. If you start your own company. Your company may go bankrupt, but it is unlikely that you will be laid off.
gedy 4y ago
The dot com bust was so much worse (so far) because you had teams and companies and markets just vaporize. Made me pretty sour for a few years, but realizing it helps now to one, keep the current cuts in context (not too bad), and two, that even if the world seems to be falling apart, things do get better. Another silver lining is the junior devs not asking "Why are you still working at your age? I'll be retired by 35" :-)
coffeefirst 4y ago
Unfortunately there's no such thing. The problem is being essential isn't the same as job security. You can wind up with new leadership that dislikes the old guard, or entire divisions or businesses being wiped out by a small circle of executives and accountants that don't actually understand how anything get done in practice. Job security is the ability to go get another one. I suppose that's a place where being really good and someone people like working with can be extremely helpful.
jonathankoren 4y ago
This article is horribly naïve. We can start with the obvious part, everyone, literally EVERYONE, from the part time intern janitorial contractor, to the demigod CEO are completely replaceable. If you dropped dead today, the team you’re on will have already divided up your tasks and recovered by the end of the week. Your division, let alone the company, will never even notice you’re gone. That’s just the honest truth. The second hard truth is, getting laid off is not your fault or a reflection of your abilities. It’s about an edict that came down from the c-suite. This is why entire teams are laid off. There’s very little rhyme or reason to these things. Don’t beat yourself up about it. It’s inevitable that you’ll eventually get hit. If anything, it reflects on the incompetence of upper management. Microsoft admits to hiring 10,000 too many people? Whose fault is that, Jake in SRE? No! It’s Satya Nadella’s fault.
thenerdhead 4y ago
The only way to get so good they can't lay you off is to be in the room where selection criteria happens. That's typically middle management (not line management to be clear).
paradox242 4y ago
The larger the company, the less likely your performance even matters. When they are laying off entire teams and divisions based on entries tabulated in a spreadsheet, no one gives a shit that you are the one that gets called on the weekend to help troubleshoot a critical service that no one but you really understands. Your salary and benefits are just a tally in the "costs" column that has to be reduced.
- cosmodisk 4y ago
  That's exactly how it is. I still remember going into the office, when the company was going through some very tough period, and sitting with the directors and other managers. All we had was a spreadsheet with employee names, positions, and their salaries. Then,one by one we removed as many as it was possible and then people got made redundant.
DoesntMatter22 4y ago
Even if you aren't replaceable they will still replace you. It could be detrimental to them but they'll do it anyway
buffington 4y ago
I was the CTO of a tech company where we needed to do layoffs or go out of business in a month. Layoffs extended our runway by 2 years if all else remained the same. It didn't last that long though. We got acquired a few months later and once debt was paid and the VCs got their cut there was just enough left to provide 3 months of severance to employees (my co-founder and I used our payouts to cover that - I walked away with less than $1k when all was said and done). When I had to do layoffs, who got picked to be laid off was almost entirely random. I say "almost" because before picking who would go, we first selected teams with redundant roles. For example, if a team had two mid-level backend engineers, they had redundant roles, and one of those two roles would be eliminated at random. That was literally the only "thought" put into who got cut or not. Where we didn't have redundant roles, it was random. Directors got laid off, QA testers, facilities people. It was one of the worst experiences of my life. Today I'm convinced that the only people safe when it comes to layoffs is the board of directors. It doesn't go a long way to help people feel better, but if you're laid off, it's nearly 100% likely that it had nothing to do with your performance, whether or not you were "liked", tenure/seniority, or how much you got paid.
SilverBirch 4y ago
I don't think this post really views this from the perspective of the company. Why do companies do layoffs? Well, many reasons, but in general they feel a need to spend less money but intend to get better results. To some extent that means laying off people who are poor at their jobs and keeping people who are good at their jobs. This is almost impossible, because the good people are the most willing to leave, and the bad people are most motivated to politic. So the company is going to lay people off and realistically, it's not going to be about who is good or bad. There is some sense though, cuts are not going to hit core parts of the business first. One of the curiosities of this is that the rockstar engineers often want to go and build something incredible and new. But those are the exact types of places where management will turn around and say "Yo! Why do we have 50 extremely expensive engineers working on this weird project bringing in no money". So you can go where the interesting work is, but often that's the most precarious position. Do you think the mediocre engineer working on Facebook's timeline is more or less at risk than the Rockstar building a new UI for Meta's next headset? I know who shareholders would want to keep.

54 points by impish9208 4y ago

An industry term I used to hear was 'golden handcuffs', but that was didn't necessarily mean being 'so good' over rather some culture of corporate politics.

DieBruderBauer 4y ago

M$FT laid off 10K workers while it boasted record-breaking profits. Sure they'll try to justify it. Doens't make it _not_ obscene.

Guthur 4y ago
Exactly, and none of this has to be this way, we chose this existence.
MuffinFlavored 4y ago
at what point is a business allowed to be a business and run itself for profit (even more than it is making now) without being “judged” for the mean stuff it has to do? it isn’t personal that it gave people a job and then took it away they don’t owe it to anybody to sacrifice their profit so others can have a job
- kevinh 4y ago
  A company can run itself without regard for anything but profit. That's been a winning strategy for quite a while now. There's no amount of money they can make that will prevent them being judged for it though. No one owes a company good will.
- nickpeterson 4y ago
  By that rationale they should open payday loan centers in low income neighborhoods, why not?
- lazyasciiart 4y ago
  At the point where it doesn't have "profit" in the mission statement.
  - klyrs 4y ago
    Says it right up front: "do no evil." But to a capitalist, the greatest evil is losing money.
- klyrs 4y ago
  > at what point is a business allowed to be a business and run itself for profit (even more than it is making now) without being “judged” for the mean stuff it has to do? Never. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, losing homes, filling prisons. The majority stockholders are of the CEO class. They aren't in any danger of life-impacting loss if they have a lick of financial sense. Dividends to the cronies and axe to the peasants is never going to be popular with anybody but cronies and bootlickers.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  Anyone can be judged for anything. It's always interesting that some focus more on those who speak their minds about something than the actual actions taken that are being criticized, as if the real problem is people having opinions and speaking freely about them. It feels like the root sentiment is "X can do whatever they want, but you're not allowed to do the same by saying anything about it."
x86x87 4y ago
Salesforce did this way before anyone else, during the actual pandemic. M$FT has been quietly doing this for eons. It's just that they are good at doing this without laying off a massive number of people at a time. So for M$FT this layoff seems like it's about posturing and being "in line" with the market, which makes it even crappier than it really is.

derekp7 4y ago

One way to think of this is take a look back at the previous positions you've held, then left. Did any of those companies go out of business because you left? Were they (or the department) seriously injured? Now, ask yourself if they knew they would have major issues to overcome if you left. If they didn't, then even if they fell apart when you departed, then there was nothing stopping them from laying you off if a strong enough reason came about. If, however, they realized how bad things would be if you were gone, then they were negligent by not hiring redundancy. What you need to do is make yourself as valuable to the company as you are willing to do (avoid burning yourself out though). Make sure you have a deep enough emergency fund, and enough expenses that you can cut to survive an extended unemployment. Chances are that if you are part of a mass layoff, that won't reflect as badly on you as if you got fired for other reasons. And if there is a severance package, don't panic right away -- you have time to address the situation properly. Oh, and if you have enough time off before you land your next position, make sure you take care of yourself. The lack of work stress will do wonders to re-energize you, making you perform at a higher level at the next gig and hopefully exceed expectations (thereby setting you up for promotions etc).

GauntletWizard 4y ago

Nobody's so good that they can't be laid off, because layoffs are rarely about function or skill. Layoffs are mostly political; They're about which parts of the company are successful as a whole viewed by the CEO. You can be so good that the business will fail without you[1], but you cannot be so good that the business cannot lay you off. [1]though that itself should be a firing offense; It's impossible to tell that from "job security through code obscurity" and the latter should be assumed.

vichu 4y ago

As far as I can tell from anecdotal reports by friends at some of these companies, many of these tech layoffs have been done with little rhyme or reason - at least with regard to technical skill, individual contribution, and team cohesion. There's inklings of metrics that the suits decided on, but it is murky and unclear. It seems like few to no people in any of their managerial chains were consulted. I'm curious to hear from HNers if any of you were in the room that got to decide who got to stay and who had to go.

tehlike 4y ago
The no consulting is intentional. Things leak too fast otherwise.
- Spivak 4y ago
  Also, semi-blindly firing based on some opaque metrics doesn’t open you up to wrongful termination or discrimination lawsuits.
  - tehlike 4y ago
    Exactly. Also good from laid-off person pov (considering...) as if it were just performance metric, most people wouldn't be able to get hired, or even considered for interview...
tra3 4y ago
> many of these tech layoffs have been done with little rhyme or reason - at least with regard to technical skill, individual contribution, and team cohesion. There's inklings of metrics that the suits decided on, but it is murky and unclear. Maybe it’s even simpler. We all complain about the interview process, but it doesn’t end there does it? The management kinda knows what you’re doing but at a very high level. The management has no idea how productive John is vs how productive jack is, unless jack is actively unpleasant to work with. Maybe it just turns into another kind of social popularity contest.
jeffbee 4y ago

iLoveOncall 4y ago

There is literally nothing of substance in this article.

vsskanth 4y ago
I agree
Spooky23 4y ago
I disagree. When someone gets laid off there’s different emotional responses. Sadness, anger, guilt, wtf, etc. Look at it as a narrative of how someone’s journey in their mind progressed after a major event. There’s no such thing as “so good they can’t lay you off” - that’s the point. The authors conclusion is that focusing on what you offer versus what you can lose, you’re never lost.
- iLoveOncall 4y ago
  That's fine, and it's also fine to share it on HN, but the title should reflect that it's just an introspection post layoff rather than a more researched article.

iambateman 4y ago

No one - no one - is irreplaceable. Long after you leave, your organizations will continue on, as they should. Counterintuitively, trying to be irreplaceable will hamper your ability to share information, power, and credit. It’s much better to just be as generous as you can.

grogenaut 4y ago
I've encountered several people who tried to do this... all of them were not as smart as they thought they were. I got 3 of the four to stop by saying "after we fire you I'll just have [the two smartest people they know] spend a month on your system do you think they'll figure it out"... they were like "yeah you're right" and became a lot more productive... the 4th we had to let go and it took about a month.
- peepeepoopoo3 4y ago
  You must be a very popular manager at the office.
  - grogenaut 4y ago
    I'm not a manager, I'm a lead / pe. This is over 22 years that it's happened 4 times. 2 were at drinks and 2 were at mentoring sessions, all 4 were kinda struggling and looking for a safety net.
  - jonathankoren 4y ago
    It depends. If someone is feint am asshole and tearing down the team, a “knock it off or else” approach is certainly a reasonable response, especially if done privately.
_lazlo 4y ago
[dead]
rconti 4y ago
For bus factor reasons, it could be considered better to make sure you get rid of 'irreplaceable' people at equal rates as everyone else.

pyrolistical 4y ago

You need to be providing obvious alpha (positive return on investment) and you won’t be fired On the flip side you need to reduce your alpha to maximize your own personal compensation. This ends up in a balancing act. Don’t play it too safe.

lance_klusener 4y ago
Can you elaborate - You need to reduce your alpha ? Are you referring to - Reduce ones expenses?

heavyset_go 4y ago

No one is so good that they can't be laid off. The entire point of the way production is practiced is to ensure that labor fungible. To think otherwise is an exercise in ego stroking.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
You are a mercenary. Who you work for and the work itself are inconsequential, and you could be out the door at a moment's notice. It is not a family, and the job is never going to love you back. Do not get emotionally invested. You will suffer. It is not about being good. Good people (exceptional people even) get laid off and fired too. Rather, be "So Prepared You Head To The Pub and DGAF, The New Gig Starts Monday." Low burn rate, substantial emergency fund, robust retirement and investment accounts, being able to negotiate from a position of power, professional network to rely on, etc.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  Yup, that's mentality I take. I'm aware of how precarious employment is and prepare as if my paycheck from one client/employer is my last from them. Watched way too many people suffer who thought otherwise, I'm not going to make that same mistake.
gitfan86 4y ago
Sales people are the exception to this. If a salesperson has a 10M deal that he is about to close within the next 6 months, it is a really bad idea to fire him, since he will probably tell the customer that your company isn't that great.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  Every employment contract I've signed, or that I can at least remember, stipulated that you can be sued if you interfere with their client relationships after leaving. Agree with you that it's a bad idea to axe liaisons while deals are going through, but at the same time clients agreeing to deals at that stage will probably still see them through despite their sales contacts leaving.

scarmig 4y ago

At least at a big company, RIF decisions are made at higher levels than anyone who knows anything about you or your work. Obviously people on PIP are in trouble, but beyond that there's not much you can do, unless you're Jeff Dean level. I know two people at Google who were slotted for T (transformative) and O (outstanding) GRAD ratings who were laid off, along with their entire teams. There's only so much you can do.

mjr00 4y ago
> I know two people at Google who were slotted for T (transformative) and O (outstanding) GRAD ratings who were laid off, along with their entire teams. There's only so much you can do. There's only so much you can do, but developers and other ICs often turn a blind eye to the actual wider business. Sometimes it's exceedingly obvious that the business unit, company, or even wider industry as a whole that you're working in is on a downward spiral, but people won't or can't recognize it. The writing was on the wall for Twitter for many years. Alexa and Echo were clearly massive busts for many years. If you're still at a crypto company in 2023, you pretty much have to have resigned to just coasting until the inevitable layoff or company bankruptcy. If you're at Meta working on Metaverse/VR, don't say I didn't warn you when you get your layoff notice in a year or two. If you want to avoid being laid off, join a company that makes money, and make sure you're in the part of the company that actually makes money. The crazy new tech and R&D groups might be the most fun, but they're also going to be the first to get slashed.
- scarmig 4y ago
  For the concrete situation I mentioned above, they were in a part of Google that was profitable, but just not profitable enough. (The Google graveyard is going to have a lot more tombstones over the next couple months.) But, yeah: all other factors being equal, it's always better to join a company that's making money in the org that makes the most money.
  - mjr00 4y ago
    for sure. If I were at Google or Meta right now and not part of something that directly impacts ad sales, I would start looking for a new job.

officialchicken 4y ago

So good you OWN the company is the only safe way. It's true. Build something awesome - build something people want.

eduction 4y ago
Owning a company is safe? Not at all. It might not be called a “layoff” but you can sure fail at it. Also, you can maybe build something people want today but we can’t predict what the future will bring. It is comforting to think we have some influence on our fate. But also comforting (more comforting, I think) to let go of the illusion that we have control.
heavyset_go 4y ago
If you take other people's money to run a business, those people can run you out if they feel you're a detriment to their investments. Investors can afford legal battles, and if you're taking other people's money, chances are you won't be able to outspend them in court.

29athrowaway 4y ago

Employee A: documents all work, delivers documentation, cares abour business continuity, helps others, thrives in transparency Employee B: withholds information, accumulates information, excludes others, exploits information asymmetry, selfish fuck, thrives in obscurity Who is more likely to be laid off? Employee A This is why frequent layoffs create companies of parasitic unethical toxic jerks. So a lot of people not being laid off are not "good", but rather just unethical parasites.

heavyset_go 4y ago
Employee B will be put in a "it's time to train your replacement" scenario and will be let go. Employee B would have probably been dealt with way before layoffs, as well. Relying on an oracle is a roadblock that will have, at the very least, annoyed anyone who had to work with them. That oracle is an easily recognizable bottleneck. No one is safe from layoffs.

neilv 4y ago

For software engineering orgs, I try to push a practice of lightweight effective internal documentation. Part of my argument sometimes -- to handle objections about job security from keeping info in one's head -- has been that people shouldn't worry about it hurtig job security, because the people who are conscientious about documenting will be recognized as too good of engineers to lose. But when we're seeing a frenzy of layoffs across the industry (even by companies making huge profits), it's harder to say that job security isn't a concern. (I'll still push on documentation, because it's important good practice for the team's success, and we're doomed if individuals start thinking they need to hoard the company's knowledge. But I'll have to be thinking of better ways that people's livelihood interests can be covered.)

boojums 4y ago
Do you have any more information on "lightweight effective documentation"? I never seen it work in practice. If there is a method thay has worked for you I would be keen to hear.

vsskanth 4y ago

I sometimes wonder if these seemingly random layoffs at top tech companies, irrespective of whether they were high performers would cause reputational damage to a level where they would have to pay even more money the next time they need to hire talent. I'm assuming top tier talent isn't going to want to work for you if you're gonna be randomly laid off, not to mention people on work visas who need to maintain a job to stay.

voakbasda 4y ago
I agree this does not help their reputation. Indeed, I would define “top” tech companies as those competent enough to avoid these kind of layoffs. This kind of move comes from a business that instead has grown fat and lazy. The best companies remain hungry and nimble.

throwaway98797 4y ago

if you’re sooo good they can’t lay you off, that means you’re too good to get promoted too.

thewebcount 4y ago

Many years ago Chris Espinosa (Apple Employee #8) gave a talk at MacHack about how to stay in a job at Apple for so long. (This would have been around 2000 and he had been there since the 70s.) His conclusion was that you should be obscure but irreplaceable. That is do something that nobody else understands, but that is necessary to keep things running. Seems to have worked for him!

AtlasBarfed 4y ago
Aka document nothing

partiallypro 4y ago

Everyone being replaceable is a concept that is emotionally hard to wrap your head around, especially when you're the one being replaced, but it is undoubtedly true. Even Caesar was replaced, I think they can replace a programmer or PM/AM, etc. That being said, I did leave my previous company for a better opportunity and am on occasion reached out to from that company or even that company's own customers for assistance on specific items. Still replaceable, but there is learned knowledge that can be a deficit for a while or even forever, especially if it is simply not profitable to have someone learn it or it exists without maintenance for so long that no one remembers or knows how to fix/remedy if it ever does need maintenance.

docandrew 4y ago
“Even Caesar was replaced” -very insightful! It’s always humbling to be in a position where you think “there’s no way this place will survive without me” but it seems like the show goes on, no matter what.
- davidgay 4y ago
  > “Even Caesar was replaced” -very insightful! Though when the replacement requires a civil war, it may be a step too far for most companies (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberators%27_civil_war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberators%27_civil_war)...
dilyevsky 4y ago
> The cemeteries of the world are full of indispensable men - Charles de Gaulle

mberning 4y ago

Absolutely not. You have to understand how indiscriminate and capricious layoffs often are, especially for large organizations. Frequently the criteria for a layoff is crafted first in foremost with the goal of not being sued for discrimination. I worked for a very large, very well known global industrial giant. When the economic winds were too unfavorable they cooked up a layoff that was based entirely upon where the employee was located, and whether it was aligned with their "site strategy". So if you sat in the wrong location, you were gone, regardless of how good you were. They actually laid off one of the best and most valuable engineers that I ever worked with.

flappyeagle 4y ago

On the one hand, the severance packages at all of these places are so generous that I would want to get laid off in order to work on side projects, take a vacation, play with some startup ideas... Maybe that's why I don't work at any of these places. I'm sure many of these folks are dependent on their very high salaries to maintain their lifestyle, but seems like a golden opportunity for some temporary freedom that we're not often afforded in the USA.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago

Yes. If you start your own company. Your company may go bankrupt, but it is unlikely that you will be laid off.

gedy 4y ago

The dot com bust was so much worse (so far) because you had teams and companies and markets just vaporize. Made me pretty sour for a few years, but realizing it helps now to one, keep the current cuts in context (not too bad), and two, that even if the world seems to be falling apart, things do get better. Another silver lining is the junior devs not asking "Why are you still working at your age? I'll be retired by 35" :-)

coffeefirst 4y ago

Unfortunately there's no such thing. The problem is being essential isn't the same as job security. You can wind up with new leadership that dislikes the old guard, or entire divisions or businesses being wiped out by a small circle of executives and accountants that don't actually understand how anything get done in practice. Job security is the ability to go get another one. I suppose that's a place where being really good and someone people like working with can be extremely helpful.

jonathankoren 4y ago

This article is horribly naïve. We can start with the obvious part, everyone, literally EVERYONE, from the part time intern janitorial contractor, to the demigod CEO are completely replaceable. If you dropped dead today, the team you’re on will have already divided up your tasks and recovered by the end of the week. Your division, let alone the company, will never even notice you’re gone. That’s just the honest truth. The second hard truth is, getting laid off is not your fault or a reflection of your abilities. It’s about an edict that came down from the c-suite. This is why entire teams are laid off. There’s very little rhyme or reason to these things. Don’t beat yourself up about it. It’s inevitable that you’ll eventually get hit. If anything, it reflects on the incompetence of upper management. Microsoft admits to hiring 10,000 too many people? Whose fault is that, Jake in SRE? No! It’s Satya Nadella’s fault.

thenerdhead 4y ago

The only way to get so good they can't lay you off is to be in the room where selection criteria happens. That's typically middle management (not line management to be clear).

paradox242 4y ago

The larger the company, the less likely your performance even matters. When they are laying off entire teams and divisions based on entries tabulated in a spreadsheet, no one gives a shit that you are the one that gets called on the weekend to help troubleshoot a critical service that no one but you really understands. Your salary and benefits are just a tally in the "costs" column that has to be reduced.

cosmodisk 4y ago
That's exactly how it is. I still remember going into the office, when the company was going through some very tough period, and sitting with the directors and other managers. All we had was a spreadsheet with employee names, positions, and their salaries. Then,one by one we removed as many as it was possible and then people got made redundant.

DoesntMatter22 4y ago

Even if you aren't replaceable they will still replace you. It could be detrimental to them but they'll do it anyway

buffington 4y ago

I was the CTO of a tech company where we needed to do layoffs or go out of business in a month. Layoffs extended our runway by 2 years if all else remained the same. It didn't last that long though. We got acquired a few months later and once debt was paid and the VCs got their cut there was just enough left to provide 3 months of severance to employees (my co-founder and I used our payouts to cover that - I walked away with less than $1k when all was said and done). When I had to do layoffs, who got picked to be laid off was almost entirely random. I say "almost" because before picking who would go, we first selected teams with redundant roles. For example, if a team had two mid-level backend engineers, they had redundant roles, and one of those two roles would be eliminated at random. That was literally the only "thought" put into who got cut or not. Where we didn't have redundant roles, it was random. Directors got laid off, QA testers, facilities people. It was one of the worst experiences of my life. Today I'm convinced that the only people safe when it comes to layoffs is the board of directors. It doesn't go a long way to help people feel better, but if you're laid off, it's nearly 100% likely that it had nothing to do with your performance, whether or not you were "liked", tenure/seniority, or how much you got paid.

SilverBirch 4y ago

I don't think this post really views this from the perspective of the company. Why do companies do layoffs? Well, many reasons, but in general they feel a need to spend less money but intend to get better results. To some extent that means laying off people who are poor at their jobs and keeping people who are good at their jobs. This is almost impossible, because the good people are the most willing to leave, and the bad people are most motivated to politic. So the company is going to lay people off and realistically, it's not going to be about who is good or bad. There is some sense though, cuts are not going to hit core parts of the business first. One of the curiosities of this is that the rockstar engineers often want to go and build something incredible and new. But those are the exact types of places where management will turn around and say "Yo! Why do we have 50 extremely expensive engineers working on this weird project bringing in no money". So you can go where the interesting work is, but often that's the most precarious position. Do you think the mediocre engineer working on Facebook's timeline is more or less at risk than the Rockstar building a new UI for Meta's next headset? I know who shareholders would want to keep.