5 ms·

nicenewtemp84 believes that large companies layoff engineers based on skill. The truth: Eenie meenie miny moe

nicenewtemp84 3y ago
ReflectedImage thinks large companies layoff engineers based on a random number picker. The truth: everyone knows who the underperformers are.
- zer0tonin 3y ago
  Everyone in a team might know who the underperformers are. But team members and EM are kept out of layoff-related decisions, which are generally done by upper management with the help of external consultants. Those external consultants are about as good as a random number generator.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    People are also only fungible to a limited degree. Companies cancel projects, eliminate functions, and so forth. Especially in the middle of a large layoff there's often a limited appetite for finding a new home for someone who may be a high performer in the abstract but doesn't have a job any longer and may not be an ideal match for a position that already has someone doing it.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    This is my experience. The last company I worked for that did layoffs while I was there was an example. None of the middle managers had any input in the firing decisions at all. They were just given a list of names by upper management. They were very upset about it, because they couldn't lay off people that were underperforming and were forced to lay off people who were critical or performed very well. Many of them said that it didn't appear that the decision-makers even looked at performance reviews, either. It appeared random.
- thephyber 3y ago
  You are making similar logical errors. You speak as if the most recent layoffs were simply firing the lazy employees. AFAICT, companies are both jettisoning entire departments related to bad bets (or bad business models) and preparing for anticipated recession-level revenues. Skills are not perfectly fungible. Managers making layoff decisions based on the roles/skills they need to keep and what budget they can afford. This necessarily means that some underperformers will be retained and many overperformers will be cut.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    A lot of people seem to imagine layoffs happening (or that they should happen) according to some well-calibrated stack ranking at the company level. But that's not typical at all. Sure some employees on PIPs or otherwise considered low performance may be cut regardless of role. But more typically projects get cut/defunded (whether in engineering or elsewhere) and those roles are eliminated or cut back. A good performer may have an opportunity to find a job elsewhere in the company but, in my experience, that's pretty hard given that any open slots were probably also closed as part of the layoff and everyone is pretty distracted anyway.
    - thephyber 3y ago
      I sometimes wonder if the people who think companies are perfectly optimal have ever worked in a company or large organization. It reminds me a bit of the argument against massive conspiracies to demonstrate how many people have to perfectly as an organization (leaving no evidence behind) and then have to stay quiet indefinitely. The larger the accused conspiracy, the more likely information is to leak.

ReflectedImage thinks large companies layoff engineers based on a random number picker. The truth: everyone knows who the underperformers are.

zer0tonin 3y ago
Everyone in a team might know who the underperformers are. But team members and EM are kept out of layoff-related decisions, which are generally done by upper management with the help of external consultants. Those external consultants are about as good as a random number generator.
- ghaff 3y ago
  People are also only fungible to a limited degree. Companies cancel projects, eliminate functions, and so forth. Especially in the middle of a large layoff there's often a limited appetite for finding a new home for someone who may be a high performer in the abstract but doesn't have a job any longer and may not be an ideal match for a position that already has someone doing it.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  This is my experience. The last company I worked for that did layoffs while I was there was an example. None of the middle managers had any input in the firing decisions at all. They were just given a list of names by upper management. They were very upset about it, because they couldn't lay off people that were underperforming and were forced to lay off people who were critical or performed very well. Many of them said that it didn't appear that the decision-makers even looked at performance reviews, either. It appeared random.
thephyber 3y ago
You are making similar logical errors. You speak as if the most recent layoffs were simply firing the lazy employees. AFAICT, companies are both jettisoning entire departments related to bad bets (or bad business models) and preparing for anticipated recession-level revenues. Skills are not perfectly fungible. Managers making layoff decisions based on the roles/skills they need to keep and what budget they can afford. This necessarily means that some underperformers will be retained and many overperformers will be cut.
- ghaff 3y ago
  A lot of people seem to imagine layoffs happening (or that they should happen) according to some well-calibrated stack ranking at the company level. But that's not typical at all. Sure some employees on PIPs or otherwise considered low performance may be cut regardless of role. But more typically projects get cut/defunded (whether in engineering or elsewhere) and those roles are eliminated or cut back. A good performer may have an opportunity to find a job elsewhere in the company but, in my experience, that's pretty hard given that any open slots were probably also closed as part of the layoff and everyone is pretty distracted anyway.
  - thephyber 3y ago
    I sometimes wonder if the people who think companies are perfectly optimal have ever worked in a company or large organization. It reminds me a bit of the argument against massive conspiracies to demonstrate how many people have to perfectly as an organization (leaving no evidence behind) and then have to stay quiet indefinitely. The larger the accused conspiracy, the more likely information is to leak.