7 ms·

I wonder what effects this uncertainty will have on an organizational system. With multiple rounds of layoffs, talks of 'flattening', projects being cancelled,

I wonder what effects this uncertainty will have on an organizational system. With multiple rounds of layoffs, talks of 'flattening', projects being cancelled, internal transfers being frozen, hiring being frozen, when does an organization finally become 'healthy' again? When are the right people in the right places making the right decisions again? Does an organization that has so much capital need to even care about organizational strength?

discordance 4y ago
I've noticed more uncertainty, less comradery, a general malaise, lack of motivation and a lot less trust in the organization. A very very different feeling to a year ago.
- saiya-jin 4y ago
  Sounds like faangs are becoming more like banking environment where few % layoffs are often happening few times a year. It still sucks to be the one affected and over time it sucks out a lot of positive energy
  - Traubenfuchs 4y ago
    In my country, big national banks IT jobs are one of the last bastions of "potential forever job".
  - chasd00 4y ago
    they're becoming like the IBMs and HPs of the world. Old dinosaurs set in their ways and they're not handling it very well.
- Panini_Jones 4y ago
  Have we seen this happen in the past? Did Microsoft go through a general sense of despondency when it cut people in 2009? Did it recover?
  - oxfordmale 4y ago
    This was how Microsoft was seen in 2013 as Ballmer stepped down: "Slumping stock price and unimaginative vision has left Microsoft marooned between a fading past and an uncertain future" An unimaginative vision is a common result of mass lay-offs. The ones that stay behind do not dare to take risks and prefer to stick to the status quo. Only after Satya Nadella took over, did Microsoft start to recover.
    - prox 4y ago
      So FB / Meta needs a new CEO ?
      - wetpaws 4y ago
        The writing was on the wall since a long time ago.
      - mschuster91 4y ago
        I'm usually not one to say companies shouldn't take on risks to expand into new business areas, particularly not in times where the core product is bleeding lucrative users... but here it's the same shit as with Twitter prior to Parag Agrawal's term or with Elon Musk's dozens of ventures. It's one thing and bad enough if board members have sometimes dozens of posts... but Zuckerberg, Musk, Dorsey all show it's not a good idea when an actually active C-level exec has too many things on their table. And it's especially not good if they use company resources for their personal pet projects.
        b112 4y ago
        And it's especially not good if they use company resources for their personal pet projects. Good grief. I guess if you are a CFO, or finance guy, sure. But a "pet project" is conjoined with passion. And R&D, and testing the waters in other markets, is what causes true motivation. People often complain that big corps can only innovate via acquisition. Yet, this comment is complaining that big corps are innovating by... startup methods! For what does a startup do, other than live as the pet project of its founders? We should encourage CEOs of large corps to go out on a limb, to R&D, to bring change to the market, to explore new growth streams.
- disgruntledphd2 4y ago
  My old boss who's still a director there said that it's been horrible since the Apple ATT changes, but then she's in ads. I always used to say that it's easy to be nice in a growth company, and that appears to have been proven out by recent events.
  - maayank 4y ago
    “It’s easy to be an angel in paradise”
    - edflsafoiewq 4y ago
      Tell that to Adam.
frozenport 4y ago
In 2022 their core business made 27 billion with 5 billion revenue if advertising income falls by ~12% ((27-24)/27) they are no longer profitable. https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/A421/production/_127571024_873a6902-1b7f-4441-a817-06932bd6dc19.png.webp https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/A421/production/... Haven't touched their platforms for years. User base in the USA keeps declining. They need to cut expenses.
- _2d30 4y ago
  I have no idea what financial statement you’re looking at but this is not remotely correct.
- MuffinFlavored 4y ago
  you mean made $5b on $27b in revenue?
- blowski 4y ago
  In Q3 2022 they made about $4.4B net profit on revenues of $27B. Across the whole of 2022, it was $23B net profit on $117B revenue. Not sure what you mean by “core business”. About 97% ($113B) of their revenue comes from advertising on Facebook, and half of that is in the US.
  - MuffinFlavored 4y ago
    > Across the whole of 2022, it was $23B net profit on $117B revenue. I'm not sure why who you were responding to assumed that if revenue dropped by 12%, profit would go to 0... Wouldn't it be: $117b revenue = $23b profit = 19.6% profit margin If revenue went down 12%, margins would probably stay the same?
jillesvangurp 4y ago
Yes they do. The trick is not throwing out the baby with the bath water. Elon Musk got a lot of criticism for how he handled layoffs at Twitter. But he did provide clarity and then ripped off the band aid. Notice how things have gone quiet around Twitter lately. IMHO, it wasn't nice but what remains is probably a healthier organization and a fairly stable team. A lot of people left in the process and that was always going to need to happen. But what remains seems to keep things going and they can now think about a future and work on that. He could have done it in a more respectful way. But doing it quickly was actually not a bad thing. Facebook is dragging it out and people are unhappy. Having seen this from the inside, when companies are going through a lengthy process of repeated layoffs, people get nervous and lose trust in management being on top of things (because they obviously aren't). At some point people just start leaving by themselves instead of awaiting the next round. Or worse, they mentally check out and patiently wait for the compensation that comes with their layoff. Either way, they stop being productive team members. This creates a toxic situation that is hard to recover from. IMHO Facebook should be more decisive and rip off the band aid a bit faster. They have a staffing problem. Too many people that were added that aren't delivering whatever Facebook had in mind. They are spending billions on things that aren't working very well. And throwing more money at the problem has stopped working. It's just costing them more money to do the same things they were doing.
- saagarjha 4y ago
  > Notice how things have gone quiet around Twitter lately. This was today: https://twitter.com/iamharaldur/status/1632843191773716481 https://twitter.com/iamharaldur/status/1632843191773716481
  - arda_demirtas 4y ago
    I hate the attitude, the language and the fact that these people are running this world. "Approved, you go ahead" Just drains my energy and hope for the future.
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
ithkuil 4y ago
> hiring being frozen I don't know when they made that decision but a recruiter contacted me from meta last week. I wonder how far do people go through the hiring pipeline before the "stop the engines" signal arrives. Hopefully not after the offer has been accepted.
- ivan_gammel 4y ago
  It may continue for another few weeks after „Stop engines“ signal is received, because recruiters still have their jobs and team leads will tell them: „Let’s keep recruiting funnel warm, while I’m checking if that signal really applies to us“. Until every team with an ambitious team lead is told that they are not special and they really should stop, they may still continue at least talking to people. And some may even got their budget after few rounds of negotiations, so this strategy will make a lot of sense for them.
  - johannes1234321 4y ago
    ... and what else should recruiters do? Sit there do nothing and fear being cut? Better be able to show what a pipeline you have.
    - AdamN 4y ago
      Yeah, some recruiters are going to keep recruiting until they're fired. There's always a chance that somebody needs a warm funnel and then they'll be the ones kept around when the others are laid off.
      - Overtonwindow 4y ago
        Just a personal anecdote, I found Facebook's recruiters to be the absolute worst. The facts and figures of the position kept changing, and I spoke to three of them, and came away with zero confidence in their abilities.
    - ivan_gammel 4y ago
      It depends on organization, but in-house recruiters do not always have to interview people for specific positions. Employer branding, acquiring leads through meetups and conferences can also be part of the job.

discordance 4y ago

I've noticed more uncertainty, less comradery, a general malaise, lack of motivation and a lot less trust in the organization. A very very different feeling to a year ago.

saiya-jin 4y ago
Sounds like faangs are becoming more like banking environment where few % layoffs are often happening few times a year. It still sucks to be the one affected and over time it sucks out a lot of positive energy
- Traubenfuchs 4y ago
  In my country, big national banks IT jobs are one of the last bastions of "potential forever job".
- chasd00 4y ago
  they're becoming like the IBMs and HPs of the world. Old dinosaurs set in their ways and they're not handling it very well.
Panini_Jones 4y ago
Have we seen this happen in the past? Did Microsoft go through a general sense of despondency when it cut people in 2009? Did it recover?
- oxfordmale 4y ago
  This was how Microsoft was seen in 2013 as Ballmer stepped down: "Slumping stock price and unimaginative vision has left Microsoft marooned between a fading past and an uncertain future" An unimaginative vision is a common result of mass lay-offs. The ones that stay behind do not dare to take risks and prefer to stick to the status quo. Only after Satya Nadella took over, did Microsoft start to recover.
  - prox 4y ago
    So FB / Meta needs a new CEO ?
    - wetpaws 4y ago
      The writing was on the wall since a long time ago.
    - mschuster91 4y ago
      I'm usually not one to say companies shouldn't take on risks to expand into new business areas, particularly not in times where the core product is bleeding lucrative users... but here it's the same shit as with Twitter prior to Parag Agrawal's term or with Elon Musk's dozens of ventures. It's one thing and bad enough if board members have sometimes dozens of posts... but Zuckerberg, Musk, Dorsey all show it's not a good idea when an actually active C-level exec has too many things on their table. And it's especially not good if they use company resources for their personal pet projects.
      - b112 4y ago
        And it's especially not good if they use company resources for their personal pet projects. Good grief. I guess if you are a CFO, or finance guy, sure. But a "pet project" is conjoined with passion. And R&D, and testing the waters in other markets, is what causes true motivation. People often complain that big corps can only innovate via acquisition. Yet, this comment is complaining that big corps are innovating by... startup methods! For what does a startup do, other than live as the pet project of its founders? We should encourage CEOs of large corps to go out on a limb, to R&D, to bring change to the market, to explore new growth streams.
disgruntledphd2 4y ago
My old boss who's still a director there said that it's been horrible since the Apple ATT changes, but then she's in ads. I always used to say that it's easy to be nice in a growth company, and that appears to have been proven out by recent events.
- maayank 4y ago
  “It’s easy to be an angel in paradise”
  - edflsafoiewq 4y ago
    Tell that to Adam.

frozenport 4y ago

In 2022 their core business made 27 billion with 5 billion revenue if advertising income falls by ~12% ((27-24)/27) they are no longer profitable. https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/A421/production/_127571024_873a6902-1b7f-4441-a817-06932bd6dc19.png.webp https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/A421/production/... Haven't touched their platforms for years. User base in the USA keeps declining. They need to cut expenses.

_2d30 4y ago
I have no idea what financial statement you’re looking at but this is not remotely correct.
MuffinFlavored 4y ago
you mean made $5b on $27b in revenue?
blowski 4y ago
In Q3 2022 they made about $4.4B net profit on revenues of $27B. Across the whole of 2022, it was $23B net profit on $117B revenue. Not sure what you mean by “core business”. About 97% ($113B) of their revenue comes from advertising on Facebook, and half of that is in the US.
- MuffinFlavored 4y ago
  > Across the whole of 2022, it was $23B net profit on $117B revenue. I'm not sure why who you were responding to assumed that if revenue dropped by 12%, profit would go to 0... Wouldn't it be: $117b revenue = $23b profit = 19.6% profit margin If revenue went down 12%, margins would probably stay the same?

jillesvangurp 4y ago

Yes they do. The trick is not throwing out the baby with the bath water. Elon Musk got a lot of criticism for how he handled layoffs at Twitter. But he did provide clarity and then ripped off the band aid. Notice how things have gone quiet around Twitter lately. IMHO, it wasn't nice but what remains is probably a healthier organization and a fairly stable team. A lot of people left in the process and that was always going to need to happen. But what remains seems to keep things going and they can now think about a future and work on that. He could have done it in a more respectful way. But doing it quickly was actually not a bad thing. Facebook is dragging it out and people are unhappy. Having seen this from the inside, when companies are going through a lengthy process of repeated layoffs, people get nervous and lose trust in management being on top of things (because they obviously aren't). At some point people just start leaving by themselves instead of awaiting the next round. Or worse, they mentally check out and patiently wait for the compensation that comes with their layoff. Either way, they stop being productive team members. This creates a toxic situation that is hard to recover from. IMHO Facebook should be more decisive and rip off the band aid a bit faster. They have a staffing problem. Too many people that were added that aren't delivering whatever Facebook had in mind. They are spending billions on things that aren't working very well. And throwing more money at the problem has stopped working. It's just costing them more money to do the same things they were doing.

saagarjha 4y ago
> Notice how things have gone quiet around Twitter lately. This was today: https://twitter.com/iamharaldur/status/1632843191773716481 https://twitter.com/iamharaldur/status/1632843191773716481
- arda_demirtas 4y ago
  I hate the attitude, the language and the fact that these people are running this world. "Approved, you go ahead" Just drains my energy and hope for the future.
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago

ithkuil 4y ago

> hiring being frozen I don't know when they made that decision but a recruiter contacted me from meta last week. I wonder how far do people go through the hiring pipeline before the "stop the engines" signal arrives. Hopefully not after the offer has been accepted.

ivan_gammel 4y ago
It may continue for another few weeks after „Stop engines“ signal is received, because recruiters still have their jobs and team leads will tell them: „Let’s keep recruiting funnel warm, while I’m checking if that signal really applies to us“. Until every team with an ambitious team lead is told that they are not special and they really should stop, they may still continue at least talking to people. And some may even got their budget after few rounds of negotiations, so this strategy will make a lot of sense for them.
- johannes1234321 4y ago
  ... and what else should recruiters do? Sit there do nothing and fear being cut? Better be able to show what a pipeline you have.
  - AdamN 4y ago
    Yeah, some recruiters are going to keep recruiting until they're fired. There's always a chance that somebody needs a warm funnel and then they'll be the ones kept around when the others are laid off.
    - Overtonwindow 4y ago
      Just a personal anecdote, I found Facebook's recruiters to be the absolute worst. The facts and figures of the position kept changing, and I spoke to three of them, and came away with zero confidence in their abilities.
  - ivan_gammel 4y ago
    It depends on organization, but in-house recruiters do not always have to interview people for specific positions. Employer branding, acquiring leads through meetups and conferences can also be part of the job.