3 ms·
You’re missing a number of critical factors. One of them is that companies have largely abdicated performance management and managing out underperformers, and l
by foobiekr 4y ago
You’re missing a number of critical factors. One of them is that companies have largely abdicated performance management and managing out underperformers, and layoffs are a primary means to get this done. Another issue is that larger companies have incentives problem when headcount justifies manager-track promotions. Layoffs are a way to force them to address dead weight headcount.
You should think harder about what might drive layoffs.
- cheese_van 4y agoYes, I experienced this. About every year and a half, my company instructed each office to layoff a certain number. Low performers were targeted. If an office didn't have low performers, good performers were let go, and only the very best were retained. It cruelly encouraged and enforced exceptional output. It was heartbreaking, actually. But the pay was very good and we accepted it. In that context I was told, "Tutor this guy (a fair worker, but not exceptional). We're going to let him go if he can't step it up." We worked together and I saved his job - it remains a very proud moment for me. The company was a leader in its field, and its merciless practice of retaining only the very best performers contributed to its success. Capitalism at its Darwinian worst, perhaps. Or its best, depending on your perspective.