3 ms·
Or maybe they thought two ~small~ big numbers in layoff headlines (or remaining employee morale) would be better than one ~big~ massive one.
by OJFord 4y ago
Or maybe they thought two ~small~ big numbers in layoff headlines (or remaining employee morale) would be better than one ~big~ massive one.
- alvis 4y agoor maybe the seniors think headline layoff is an opportunity for free advertisements
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ramesh31 4y ago>Or maybe they thought two ~small~ big numbers in layoff headlines (or remaining employee morale) would be better than one ~big~ massive one. No one in their right mind would think that. One layoff can be understood as necessary. Two says to employees "you will never feel safe here again", and is a huge signal for top performers to run for the exit.
- purpleblue 4y agoTwo layoffs is worse than one big layoff, in terms of morale.
- x86x87 4y agoLol. I don't think anyone gives a damn about morale nowadays. :(
- OJFord 4y agoOver a quarter of the company (ignoring any hiring they may have done since September) though? idk, I'm not sure it's that clear-cut. Not that I'm certain in my own opinion and disagreeing with you though - I only said 'maybe they thought'.
- purpleblue 4y agoThis is a well-known thing, people aren't guessing here and there's nothing to dispute. Having multiple layoffs destroys morale and the best practice is to cut deeply once to avoid a second layoff. Anyone who doesn't believe this is simply and foolishly repeating the mistakes of the past. Which suggests to me that it was a surprise to even themselves that they had to do this because of a revenue shortfall.