4 ms·

Also in banking. Even if you make simplifying assumptions that managers are rational and objective performance management is possible, this is still entirely tr

Also in banking. Even if you make simplifying assumptions that managers are rational and objective performance management is possible, this is still entirely true. Large scale layoffs are executed via cascaded headcount targets that affect departments, not people. Usually this entirely disregards relative performance between groups/teams, and forces managers to make local decisions that might be globally poor. Has this just not been a factor in big tech due to growth? I'm struggling to understand why recent threads like this generate so much commentary.

steveBK123 4y ago
I think, they truly haven't. Look at some of the FAANG headcount numbers 2009 (GFC) -> 2019 (pre-COVID) ->2022 (COVID hiring peak) * GOOG went 20k->120k->150k. That is, GOOG added more 150% of their total 2009 staffing level during COVID. * MSFT went 90k->144k->221k. So both companies added over 100K from GFC to today! * Netflix 2k->9k->13k. Small absolute numbers, but 6x their 2009 size? Compare to Wall St. * Bank of America went 284k->208k->208k apparently. So down from GFC and flat during COVID. * Morgan Stanley 61k->60k->75k. So down, then +25%. * JPM went 222k->256k->271k. As a %, much smaller growth, and even in absolute terms, smaller growth. * Goldman 33k->38k->44k. Their growth across the whole firm is roughly the size of what, Amazons Alexa division?!?? LOL. The numbers leave the impression that theres plenty more room to shrink.. If the end of ZIRP is Tech's GFC, then these reductions have only just begun.