4 ms·

I've always thought that employees that I had to the bottom line don't get laid off. It's a popularity contest for sure, but if the person makes money and adds

I've always thought that employees that I had to the bottom line don't get laid off. It's a popularity contest for sure, but if the person makes money and adds to the bottom line of the company, it would seem rather foolish to let that person go, unless they are disruptive.

Wistar 4y ago
At Microsoft, it is an empirical but widely-held belief that if you are an important part of a profitable division, you are a lot less likely to be RIFF'd. That said, I do know—what I considered to be—a valuable 31-year dev of MS Office who got laid off in the recent RIFF. I was very surprised.
- nocsi 4y ago
  Remember something about Microsoft. They have countless competing projects internally to keep the bloodlust going. What’s profitable? MS will let the most successful team live and kill the other two I’m not surprised they had to get rid legacy folks in the office team. The person must have refused to move onto another team and Office is a completely different product than it was before
projektfu 4y ago
The only employees that are above the gross profit line are in sales. Everyone else is an expense. When I was pre-career, I figured that was true. And then early career I believed companies must follow some sort of "keeping this person at $100,000 saves $1,000,000" rule. And now I believe the naive line again: nobody really knows what they're doing. Salespeople claim their revenue, everyone else has to argue themselves into the value of what they sold. If you think about it, every dollar of value is spoken for so many times. The salesperson sold it. The executive brought it to be sold. The system person made it a part of the deal. The line employee made it. The marketing people brought the customer to it. The support people made the customer trust it. The accounting people made sure it didn't walk out the door on its own, and HR hired them all that did it. I imagine in countries or union situations where you have to hire people back when the jobs open back up, you don't get this idea. In fact, a union tells you who goes first and last. If you have cause to fire someone, it's better to fire them with cause.

Wistar 4y ago

At Microsoft, it is an empirical but widely-held belief that if you are an important part of a profitable division, you are a lot less likely to be RIFF'd. That said, I do know—what I considered to be—a valuable 31-year dev of MS Office who got laid off in the recent RIFF. I was very surprised.

nocsi 4y ago
Remember something about Microsoft. They have countless competing projects internally to keep the bloodlust going. What’s profitable? MS will let the most successful team live and kill the other two I’m not surprised they had to get rid legacy folks in the office team. The person must have refused to move onto another team and Office is a completely different product than it was before

projektfu 4y ago

The only employees that are above the gross profit line are in sales. Everyone else is an expense. When I was pre-career, I figured that was true. And then early career I believed companies must follow some sort of "keeping this person at $100,000 saves $1,000,000" rule. And now I believe the naive line again: nobody really knows what they're doing. Salespeople claim their revenue, everyone else has to argue themselves into the value of what they sold. If you think about it, every dollar of value is spoken for so many times. The salesperson sold it. The executive brought it to be sold. The system person made it a part of the deal. The line employee made it. The marketing people brought the customer to it. The support people made the customer trust it. The accounting people made sure it didn't walk out the door on its own, and HR hired them all that did it. I imagine in countries or union situations where you have to hire people back when the jobs open back up, you don't get this idea. In fact, a union tells you who goes first and last. If you have cause to fire someone, it's better to fire them with cause.