10 ms·

Probably also a bit dystopian to assume that normal attrition happens in a way that's favourable to business operations. You are defending personal attachments

Probably also a bit dystopian to assume that normal attrition happens in a way that's favourable to business operations. You are defending personal attachments of individuals (livelihoods), while simultaneously referring to them as commodities (bodies in seats). It's not an enviable position to be in, but it's naive to believe you can build a functional organization around natural turnover. If you were told you had to lose 36% of your body mass in a year I bet you'd want to pick where it came from over a random 3% per month extraction.

falcolas 3y ago
> You are defending personal attachments of individuals (livelihoods), while simultaneously referring to them as commodities (bodies in seats). Not at all. Voluntary quitting on your own terms is very different from involuntary firing. And it's a fact that people quit a company regularly. There are ebbs and flows, but using natural attrition to your advantage as a company is a lot more humane an action than axing people in waves of layoffs to the same effect. > If you were told you had to lose 36% of your body mass in a year I bet you'd want to pick where it came from over a random 3% per month extraction. This assumes they are making highly considered choices for what talent they let go. Everything points to "they're not". Regardless, we're talking about a healthy, growing company with a good profit margin and outlook. There's likely no need to set such explicit numbers or timeframes unless you're looking to manipulate your market value.
selcuka 3y ago
> If you were told you had to lose 36% of your body mass in a year I bet you'd want to pick where it came from over a random 3% per month extraction. Anecdotal story, but the CEO of a company I worked for in the past told department managers to fire one person (exactly one, from each department) because they needed to reduce head count. That strategy sounds pretty random to me.
- CaveTech 3y ago
  Arbitrary, yes, but almost the exact opposite of random.

falcolas 3y ago

> You are defending personal attachments of individuals (livelihoods), while simultaneously referring to them as commodities (bodies in seats). Not at all. Voluntary quitting on your own terms is very different from involuntary firing. And it's a fact that people quit a company regularly. There are ebbs and flows, but using natural attrition to your advantage as a company is a lot more humane an action than axing people in waves of layoffs to the same effect. > If you were told you had to lose 36% of your body mass in a year I bet you'd want to pick where it came from over a random 3% per month extraction. This assumes they are making highly considered choices for what talent they let go. Everything points to "they're not". Regardless, we're talking about a healthy, growing company with a good profit margin and outlook. There's likely no need to set such explicit numbers or timeframes unless you're looking to manipulate your market value.

selcuka 3y ago

> If you were told you had to lose 36% of your body mass in a year I bet you'd want to pick where it came from over a random 3% per month extraction. Anecdotal story, but the CEO of a company I worked for in the past told department managers to fire one person (exactly one, from each department) because they needed to reduce head count. That strategy sounds pretty random to me.

CaveTech 3y ago
Arbitrary, yes, but almost the exact opposite of random.