6 ms·

Your previous track record has pretty much no baring on whether you're safe in a layoff. Only the perception of what you can bring to the company in the future

Your previous track record has pretty much no baring on whether you're safe in a layoff. Only the perception of what you can bring to the company in the future counts for anything. It's hard to argue how that's wrong.

wnevets 3y ago
But we're also a family here at Company Co and we will need you to work more unpaid overtime this week.
tomxor 3y ago
> Only the perception of what you can bring to the company in the future counts for anything. Like your track record for instance.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
It's not that difficult to argue. These businesses, whether they like it or not, are based on bedrock rules of analyzing past performance for the purposes of investment, marketing, and strategy. That it works for all those things, but somehow not employee performance is a bizarrely inconsistent assertion to make.
oofta-boofta 3y ago
People who do great work in the past will typically do great work in the future. It's called "being a high performer", and someone who establishes a good track record of being a high performer will provide more value in the future compared to someone without such a track record.
- closeparen 3y ago
  Executives don’t care to take the time to transition high performers to new projects or the risk that they will successfully adapt to new technologies. They’re making big moves, they “have to move fast” and “need people who can hit the ground running.” Fresh faces can have the perfect resumes for the new direction and no attachment to the status quo or clout to call on in resisting the “transformation.”
marpstar 3y ago
We see exceptions to this, and some attach on to the idea that you can become so indispensable that you could never be let go. "Technical Fellow" positions and the like. Company I worked at previously had the founding engineer still around, constantly working in a silo on special projects -- nothing the principals couldn't have been doing. But nothing lasts forever.
- voidfunc 3y ago
  Technical fellow's and keeping founder's around long past their prime isn't done because those people produce some kind of valuable work that the rest of engineering cannot, it's because it's easier to pay them rather than let them run off and start or work for a competitor.
olliecornelia 3y ago
Ya you could be the top performer and then just like that 20 years later they might fire you.
23B1 3y ago
It's wrong because it treats people like transactions instead of living creatures. Obviously we don't know the full story, but people make mistakes, underperform, or somehow lose their touch. If it's a pattern and the person obviously just doesn't want to work there anymore, fine. But on balance, I think it's better to counsel, coach, and develop people over time, regardless of experience or tenure or attitude. Not only do I believe employee churn to be more expensive in the long run (brand reputation, institutional knowledge, handover premium) but I believe it to be ethically wrong. This attitude has personally served me well. I can't prove it with data, but my heart is whole and I have no regrets about going above and beyond to retain and develop employees. I'd rather die without guilt and have a packed funeral – than a trillionaire and alone.
- achates 3y ago
  It sounds nice to keep failing executives around indefinitely while you try to train or mentor them, but in practice the company can't keep losing $100 million a movie and remain in business. Being nice to bad directors means laying off a lot of other people in the long run.
  - 23B1 3y ago
    I totally think that’s fair… And again we don’t know what happened in this particular situation. I just think that there is this foolish and ultimately costly view of employees that they are interchangeable parts, when in fact there are more effective ways to improve financial performance.

wnevets 3y ago

But we're also a family here at Company Co and we will need you to work more unpaid overtime this week.

tomxor 3y ago

> Only the perception of what you can bring to the company in the future counts for anything. Like your track record for instance.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

It's not that difficult to argue. These businesses, whether they like it or not, are based on bedrock rules of analyzing past performance for the purposes of investment, marketing, and strategy. That it works for all those things, but somehow not employee performance is a bizarrely inconsistent assertion to make.

oofta-boofta 3y ago

People who do great work in the past will typically do great work in the future. It's called "being a high performer", and someone who establishes a good track record of being a high performer will provide more value in the future compared to someone without such a track record.

closeparen 3y ago
Executives don’t care to take the time to transition high performers to new projects or the risk that they will successfully adapt to new technologies. They’re making big moves, they “have to move fast” and “need people who can hit the ground running.” Fresh faces can have the perfect resumes for the new direction and no attachment to the status quo or clout to call on in resisting the “transformation.”

marpstar 3y ago

We see exceptions to this, and some attach on to the idea that you can become so indispensable that you could never be let go. "Technical Fellow" positions and the like. Company I worked at previously had the founding engineer still around, constantly working in a silo on special projects -- nothing the principals couldn't have been doing. But nothing lasts forever.

voidfunc 3y ago
Technical fellow's and keeping founder's around long past their prime isn't done because those people produce some kind of valuable work that the rest of engineering cannot, it's because it's easier to pay them rather than let them run off and start or work for a competitor.

olliecornelia 3y ago

Ya you could be the top performer and then just like that 20 years later they might fire you.

23B1 3y ago

It's wrong because it treats people like transactions instead of living creatures. Obviously we don't know the full story, but people make mistakes, underperform, or somehow lose their touch. If it's a pattern and the person obviously just doesn't want to work there anymore, fine. But on balance, I think it's better to counsel, coach, and develop people over time, regardless of experience or tenure or attitude. Not only do I believe employee churn to be more expensive in the long run (brand reputation, institutional knowledge, handover premium) but I believe it to be ethically wrong. This attitude has personally served me well. I can't prove it with data, but my heart is whole and I have no regrets about going above and beyond to retain and develop employees. I'd rather die without guilt and have a packed funeral – than a trillionaire and alone.

achates 3y ago
It sounds nice to keep failing executives around indefinitely while you try to train or mentor them, but in practice the company can't keep losing $100 million a movie and remain in business. Being nice to bad directors means laying off a lot of other people in the long run.
- 23B1 3y ago
  I totally think that’s fair… And again we don’t know what happened in this particular situation. I just think that there is this foolish and ultimately costly view of employees that they are interchangeable parts, when in fact there are more effective ways to improve financial performance.