3 ms·
I wouldn't be surprised if they layed off "bottom 10%" in hopes of replacing them with better when the market for IT workforce is cheaper..
by ilyt 4y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if they layed off "bottom 10%" in hopes of replacing them with better when the market for IT workforce is cheaper..
- raydev 4y agoNope, it's mostly random.
- notatoad 4y agoi'm sure there's some of this, but it doesn't seem like the broader trend. if they were really laying off the bottom 10% there wouldn't be so many stories of managers complaining about their direct reports being laid off without any advance warning. it's hard to pick out low performers in any sort of sane way if you're not even asking managers who their low performers are.
- imbnwa 4y agoSeen 17-year Google vet get hit on Twitter, doubt they were a low performer
- coffeebeqn 4y agoAlso since everyone is “laying off their bottom 10%” and then rehiring from that pool thinking they’re hiring the top 10%. Sounds like musical chairs. There’s a old Joel Spolsky article on how everyone thinks they’re always hiring the global maximum