4 ms·

This just seems wrong to me. Productivity at the FAANGs was low pre-covid and tanked further when they tried to grow rapidly during COVID. Thanos snapping a si

by treis 4y ago

This just seems wrong to me. Productivity at the FAANGs was low pre-covid and tanked further when they tried to grow rapidly during COVID. Thanos snapping a significant portion of your workforce is probably the best way to get some level of productivity back. Ideally, you would carefully evaluate everything and trim the fat. But that's probably not possible and if it were it'd play out over a year or two which is worse than ripping off the band-aid. So you make the cuts and expect/hope that people will get reallocated to the most important things and productivity will go up.

wpietri 4y ago
I understand you feel that way. And clearly, that's the dominant narrative about layoffs. What makes you value those feelings enough to reject out of hand a professor who has been studying it for decades?
- treis 4y ago
  Because you can't study an unprecedented situation for decades Because rules derived over the last decades or whatever don't necessarily apply to an unprecedented situation Because pretty much all the CEOs and employees say that productivity is in the toilet Because I don't see 20% or whatever more useful products/features coming out of any of these companies
  - wpietri 4y ago
    So because of a situation you claim is unprecedented, you are advocating for doing the same old sweeping layoffs CEOs have done for decades? Personally, I think the situation is an entirely precedented change in growth expectations that comes around a tightening of monetary policy and a possible recession. But assuming that you're right, on what basis are you claiming that the standard playbook will get new and better results this time?
    - treis 4y ago
      >So because of a situation you claim is unprecedented I claim? Do you remember any other global pandemics that reshaped the tech industry?
      - wpietri 4y ago
        Again, you are failing to address most of a point. That's not a good sign, and I ask you to address it fully, but in the meantime I'll address yours. Your claim is that this is driven by the pandemic. I think that's pretty suspect. China excepted, pandemic restrictions ended quite a while ago. I think this is much better explained by the usual shifts in the overall economic cycle, especially the Fed's recent increases in interest rates as they seek to quench inflation, plus the matching stock downturn. An easy check on this: Google's announcement of layoffs doesn't even mention the pandemic. Another one is that layoffs are happening across the industry, not just in companies that were especially boosted by the pandemic. But even if it were purely driven by pandemic growth and then the retreat of growth, changes in growth expectations are not unprecedented. Unless you have numbers that show different, I expect the changes in growth rates are not unusual at all compared with other major economic phenomena.
  - notfromhere 4y ago
    CEOs are going to say that productivity is down to justify layoffs or to kill remote work (something they have been against before, during, and after the pandemic). "pretty much everyone says" is not an actual defense.
darth_avocado 4y ago
> Productivity tanked further when they tried to grow rapidly during COVID Anecdotally, the productivity went up during covid because the boundaries of WLB were shattered. But after 2 years, I think a lot of people are feeling burnt out. The companies may feel like they are just trimming the fat, but fat has an essential function in the body. With less people, no doubt, the people who are left will initially work harder, but they will soon succumb to burn out and have a loss of productivity. Working harder after already working hard for two years can do that to you. The company’s best performers at low productivity will do more harm to the companies than having their low/average performers have low productivity.
- mk81 4y ago
  [dead]
blinkingled 4y ago
How do you define productivity in this context? Musk style LOC? How many features you shipped? Let's pick one of the more sensible ones - features you shipped. Who defines those features - is top level management responsible for the product vision, overall strategy that then middle management turns into features? For companies like MAANG that are already hugely successful and have hit a wall so to speak, they don't need low level productivity before they need top level strategy and vision. Apple is a good example of their management priorities being clear - they seem to know what works and where to go next quarter and their middle management also seems capable enough to turn that into products/features and make their Engineers' lives simpler so they can be productive delivering on it. For every 10k+ layoff assuming that it's the lackey low level guys the aren't productive that needed to be laid off is not only inaccurate (lots of greatly productive Googlers have been let go for example) but also unfairly cuts a whole lot of slack for the greater financial burden on the company folks up top that are in charge of strategy and vision. After all they are also the same people that hired the people who are laid of - directly or indirectly.
- treis 4y ago
  Are you arguing that productivity, however defined, isn't down at these companies?
  - wpietri 4y ago
    I think you have missed most of blinkingled's point, and I encourage you to address it fully.
    - treis 4y ago
      There's no point in debating the meaning of productivity unless someone claims it's neutral or up. If they're willing to make that claim then it might be worth that debate. Otherwise, it's a pointless side track.
      - wpietri 4y ago
        I disagree that it it is pointless. But clearly asking you to address it is, so I'll tap out here.
theGnuMe 4y ago
Maybe do some research or read the literature?

by treis 4y ago

wpietri 4y ago

I understand you feel that way. And clearly, that's the dominant narrative about layoffs. What makes you value those feelings enough to reject out of hand a professor who has been studying it for decades?

treis 4y ago
Because you can't study an unprecedented situation for decades Because rules derived over the last decades or whatever don't necessarily apply to an unprecedented situation Because pretty much all the CEOs and employees say that productivity is in the toilet Because I don't see 20% or whatever more useful products/features coming out of any of these companies
- wpietri 4y ago
  So because of a situation you claim is unprecedented, you are advocating for doing the same old sweeping layoffs CEOs have done for decades? Personally, I think the situation is an entirely precedented change in growth expectations that comes around a tightening of monetary policy and a possible recession. But assuming that you're right, on what basis are you claiming that the standard playbook will get new and better results this time?
  - treis 4y ago
    >So because of a situation you claim is unprecedented I claim? Do you remember any other global pandemics that reshaped the tech industry?
    - wpietri 4y ago
      Again, you are failing to address most of a point. That's not a good sign, and I ask you to address it fully, but in the meantime I'll address yours. Your claim is that this is driven by the pandemic. I think that's pretty suspect. China excepted, pandemic restrictions ended quite a while ago. I think this is much better explained by the usual shifts in the overall economic cycle, especially the Fed's recent increases in interest rates as they seek to quench inflation, plus the matching stock downturn. An easy check on this: Google's announcement of layoffs doesn't even mention the pandemic. Another one is that layoffs are happening across the industry, not just in companies that were especially boosted by the pandemic. But even if it were purely driven by pandemic growth and then the retreat of growth, changes in growth expectations are not unprecedented. Unless you have numbers that show different, I expect the changes in growth rates are not unusual at all compared with other major economic phenomena.
- notfromhere 4y ago
  CEOs are going to say that productivity is down to justify layoffs or to kill remote work (something they have been against before, during, and after the pandemic). "pretty much everyone says" is not an actual defense.

darth_avocado 4y ago

> Productivity tanked further when they tried to grow rapidly during COVID Anecdotally, the productivity went up during covid because the boundaries of WLB were shattered. But after 2 years, I think a lot of people are feeling burnt out. The companies may feel like they are just trimming the fat, but fat has an essential function in the body. With less people, no doubt, the people who are left will initially work harder, but they will soon succumb to burn out and have a loss of productivity. Working harder after already working hard for two years can do that to you. The company’s best performers at low productivity will do more harm to the companies than having their low/average performers have low productivity.

mk81 4y ago
[dead]

blinkingled 4y ago

How do you define productivity in this context? Musk style LOC? How many features you shipped? Let's pick one of the more sensible ones - features you shipped. Who defines those features - is top level management responsible for the product vision, overall strategy that then middle management turns into features? For companies like MAANG that are already hugely successful and have hit a wall so to speak, they don't need low level productivity before they need top level strategy and vision. Apple is a good example of their management priorities being clear - they seem to know what works and where to go next quarter and their middle management also seems capable enough to turn that into products/features and make their Engineers' lives simpler so they can be productive delivering on it. For every 10k+ layoff assuming that it's the lackey low level guys the aren't productive that needed to be laid off is not only inaccurate (lots of greatly productive Googlers have been let go for example) but also unfairly cuts a whole lot of slack for the greater financial burden on the company folks up top that are in charge of strategy and vision. After all they are also the same people that hired the people who are laid of - directly or indirectly.

treis 4y ago
Are you arguing that productivity, however defined, isn't down at these companies?
- wpietri 4y ago
  I think you have missed most of blinkingled's point, and I encourage you to address it fully.
  - treis 4y ago
    There's no point in debating the meaning of productivity unless someone claims it's neutral or up. If they're willing to make that claim then it might be worth that debate. Otherwise, it's a pointless side track.
    - wpietri 4y ago
      I disagree that it it is pointless. But clearly asking you to address it is, so I'll tap out here.

theGnuMe 4y ago

Maybe do some research or read the literature?