3 ms·

I think the crappy thing here is because upper management wants to plan a layoff in extreme secrecy, they put themselves in the position of not being able to co

by abeppu 4y ago

I think the crappy thing here is because upper management wants to plan a layoff in extreme secrecy, they put themselves in the position of not being able to consult with the parties that have the most context. The cuts end up being crude and poorly targeted because of this secrecy. Because the assumption is that an employee who is being laid off, or thinks they may be laid off, becomes a liability immediately, no knowledge transfer or hand meetings can happen, and people may abruptly be cut off from internal systems. The company then has some extra short-term issues from the remaining staff trying to cover for their laid-off peers while missing important information and context. The responses to this post, of "we're adults that accepted an at-will employment contract" are correct. But if we all had that attitude, and if execs could treat staff like responsible adults rather than potential saboteurs, perhaps a more targeted, less disruptive and ultimately smaller layoff could be arranged. (updated for typos)

jonny_eh 4y ago
Makes me wonder why employees are expected to give two weeks notice when they choose to leave, write docs detailing knowledge transfer, etc. Why can't we just "disappear", as if we were laid off?
- disgruntledphd2 4y ago
  Well you generally can't do that in Europe. I normally have at least one months notice which I spend documenting and explaining stuff to the people who'll be taking over. That being said, I got laid off this summer (US style no more need for your services, all access revoked) and it absolutely sucked. Additionally, there's a lot of really pissed off Big Tech employees, and it's gonna be interesting to see what happens as a result of these (almost entirely unnecessary) layoffs.
- HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
  You can; no one's stopping you. People do it all the time.
foobiekr 4y ago
This is not true at all in companies that know how to do layoffs. Layoffs in mature companies consult most of the management hierarchy and even many senior ICs and in addition engage the strategic planning teams to steer resources as needed. That Google, the king of data driven, is flagrantly incompetent on this front is pretty funny, though.
- itchyouch 4y ago
  With all things, in order to be good at something, one must practice it. Being Google's first rodeo, it's not surprising that it's been executed in a less than stellar manner.
itchyouch 4y ago
I think this is an ideal, and new, cheery CEOs may espouse and even practice this to an extent. But, then I have seen these same owners become cynical after 1 or 2 bad apple employees and the demeanor shifts. Once a company grows beyond a certain threshold of employees, then the probability of having hired saboteurs increases. This is where social safety nets could play an important role in incentivizing folks to not worry, thus reducing the likelihood that they attempt to sabotage a company on their way out.
- abeppu 4y ago
  > Once a company grows beyond a certain threshold of employees, then the probability of having hired saboteurs increases. But is the layoff really the first time having these employees was dangerous? If you can't trust your staff (and sometimes you can't) then don't you need policies even in good times that prevent them from doing dangerous stuff solo? E.g. the number of people who can drop your production users table should be tiny, merges to the main branch require a review+approval from someone other than the author, viewing PII data is logged etc etc. > This is where social safety nets could play an important role in incentivizing folks to not worry, thus reducing the likelihood that they attempt to sabotage a company on their way out. I don't think the social safety net is sufficient incentive. I think the components that create alignment are: - severance is equiv to multiple months of _total_ compensation, such that people who are let go have a good shot at ending up ahead financially by getting a new job faster than that. For this reason, they're not necessarily even that upset. - all employees, whether departing or retained should be _given_ some additional chunk of equity, possibly with some restriction which prevents them from selling for k months? Extending the exercise window is not enough, if some people have options which are underwater for that full period. Everyone then still has a material reason to want the company to do well. Retained employees who are likely asked to do more work do not feel that the departing employees got a better deal.

by abeppu 4y ago

jonny_eh 4y ago

Makes me wonder why employees are expected to give two weeks notice when they choose to leave, write docs detailing knowledge transfer, etc. Why can't we just "disappear", as if we were laid off?

disgruntledphd2 4y ago
Well you generally can't do that in Europe. I normally have at least one months notice which I spend documenting and explaining stuff to the people who'll be taking over. That being said, I got laid off this summer (US style no more need for your services, all access revoked) and it absolutely sucked. Additionally, there's a lot of really pissed off Big Tech employees, and it's gonna be interesting to see what happens as a result of these (almost entirely unnecessary) layoffs.
HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
You can; no one's stopping you. People do it all the time.

foobiekr 4y ago

This is not true at all in companies that know how to do layoffs. Layoffs in mature companies consult most of the management hierarchy and even many senior ICs and in addition engage the strategic planning teams to steer resources as needed. That Google, the king of data driven, is flagrantly incompetent on this front is pretty funny, though.

itchyouch 4y ago
With all things, in order to be good at something, one must practice it. Being Google's first rodeo, it's not surprising that it's been executed in a less than stellar manner.

itchyouch 4y ago

I think this is an ideal, and new, cheery CEOs may espouse and even practice this to an extent. But, then I have seen these same owners become cynical after 1 or 2 bad apple employees and the demeanor shifts. Once a company grows beyond a certain threshold of employees, then the probability of having hired saboteurs increases. This is where social safety nets could play an important role in incentivizing folks to not worry, thus reducing the likelihood that they attempt to sabotage a company on their way out.

abeppu 4y ago
> Once a company grows beyond a certain threshold of employees, then the probability of having hired saboteurs increases. But is the layoff really the first time having these employees was dangerous? If you can't trust your staff (and sometimes you can't) then don't you need policies even in good times that prevent them from doing dangerous stuff solo? E.g. the number of people who can drop your production users table should be tiny, merges to the main branch require a review+approval from someone other than the author, viewing PII data is logged etc etc. > This is where social safety nets could play an important role in incentivizing folks to not worry, thus reducing the likelihood that they attempt to sabotage a company on their way out. I don't think the social safety net is sufficient incentive. I think the components that create alignment are: - severance is equiv to multiple months of _total_ compensation, such that people who are let go have a good shot at ending up ahead financially by getting a new job faster than that. For this reason, they're not necessarily even that upset. - all employees, whether departing or retained should be _given_ some additional chunk of equity, possibly with some restriction which prevents them from selling for k months? Extending the exercise window is not enough, if some people have options which are underwater for that full period. Everyone then still has a material reason to want the company to do well. Retained employees who are likely asked to do more work do not feel that the departing employees got a better deal.