3 ms·
> If you think that looks too bad, then don't do the thing -- find other opportunities for the people in the company. The needs of a business change. Sometimes
by bko 4y ago
> If you think that looks too bad, then don't do the thing -- find other opportunities for the people in the company.
The needs of a business change. Sometimes roles are eliminated and other times roles are added. This is normal and healthy process of every business. Can we get away from infantizing the individuals affected like they're some children whose family disowned them? It's unfortunate and you can certainly empathize with those that no longer have a role in the firm, but it's a business, not a family.
I think they are owning the outcomes. Saying "we fired 17 people" would be more disrespectful and not accurate. If I was let go due to a strategic business decision or through the natural course of the industry I wouldn't want my former employer suggesting they fired me.
- sokoloff 4y ago"As a result of this, we eliminated the roles of 17 people." is also fine, shows more ownership, and is therefore better (IMO) than "Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today." The way they phrased it is entirely standard in the industry, so it isn't exactly a mark of shame to conform with that (IMO poor) standard. (At least they avoided using an MLK quote.)