3 ms·
That suggests that companies could have designed layoffs as accelerated attrition. They could make a prediction about who likely would have left on their own. T
by troelsSteegin 4y ago
That suggests that companies could have designed layoffs as accelerated attrition. They could make a prediction about who likely would have left on their own. They could make a prediction (or observation) about whom they were managing out. Then the first layoff target is the staff who would likely not be here in two years anyhow. That's a different approach than for example culling people with higher salaries who are not graded as extraordinary contributors. Either way, I think having an identifiable rationale for layoff choices makes a layoff less shitty to go through.
- biztos 4y agoIt suggests they could have, if they were competent to do so. But for all their genius at product-market fit, I don’t think any of these companies have conquered the beast of self-serving bureaucracy. > I think having an identifiable rationale for layoff choices makes a layoff less shitty to go through. I don’t know. When I went through one the identifiable rationale was “move jobs to a cheaper country with weaker labor laws and more corruption,” and I think “oops sorry random” might have felt better.
- vineyardmike 4y ago> culling people with higher salaries who are not graded as extraordinary contributors. This seems like a better way to reduce costs though. If I got laid off “because we thought you’d quit soon anyways” and I hadn’t given notice already then I’d be quite upset.