3 ms·

Layoff-by-RTO. The dumbest move a CEO could make. Now all the smartest people have quit, and the most desperate half of your staff stuck around. A players hi

Layoff-by-RTO. The dumbest move a CEO could make. Now all the smartest people have quit, and the most desperate half of your staff stuck around. A players hire A players, B players hire C players, and apparently D players fire A + B players.

CommanderData 3y ago
Companies never see all of their workforce quit. It's a very very rare occurrence, he's taking a safe bet.
- area51org 3y ago
  You're right. Usually the better people leave, and the people who remain are largely dead weight. Really good strategery there.
cmrdporcupine 3y ago
It's only "dumb" from the perspective that you and I think that the work we and others do requires some special magic and that companies like this really need the A/B players. I think Musk "showed" that it's "possible" (in the short term) to just purge and get by with C or D players -- plus the occasional True Believer -- and still survive. Let's be honest that most companies... what they're doing... is not magic. And their CEOs are likely aware that following a Google-like "hiring the smartest people" strategy along with the $$ that goes with that may not be what they need. And during economic contractions, short-termist thinking takes often over. So here we are. But I do think in the long run, yes, it's poisonous. But out of the ashes of that come the next A-player companies.
- ProjectArcturis 3y ago
  Musk showed that if you fire a lot of your engineers, you very quickly start accumulating tech problems. In his case, it led to the absurd "tweet throttling" policy which opened the door for strategic competitors like Threads.
  - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
    Like I said, in the long term, it's poisonous.
    - ProjectArcturis 3y ago
      Long term? It took 9 months!
      - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
        Frankly, I keep waiting for the big bang implosion there, but it seems like it's just going to be a long pathetic whimper.
        rchaud 3y ago
        The implosion has already occurred. Over 80pct of their pre-takeover headcount is gone. Pricing their API in five-figure sums tells you their ad business is dead. And they're on the hook for $1.2 billion in interest payments annually. Are they even making that in revenue now? We won't know because they're privately held.
- area51org 3y ago
  The thing with C and D players is that while things can appear like they're going just fine, in fact, they tend to slowly and surely inject damage (badly written code, badly designed systems, ad nauseam) that will likely cost the company tons of money. In other words, penny-wise, pound foolish.
ProjectArcturis 3y ago
No, it's retaliation for the employees voting to unionize. Still real dumb.
paulcole 3y ago
> A players hire A players, B players hire C players, and apparently D players fire A + B players. How many people have you ever met who self-identified as a non-A player?

CommanderData 3y ago

Companies never see all of their workforce quit. It's a very very rare occurrence, he's taking a safe bet.

area51org 3y ago
You're right. Usually the better people leave, and the people who remain are largely dead weight. Really good strategery there.

cmrdporcupine 3y ago

It's only "dumb" from the perspective that you and I think that the work we and others do requires some special magic and that companies like this really need the A/B players. I think Musk "showed" that it's "possible" (in the short term) to just purge and get by with C or D players -- plus the occasional True Believer -- and still survive. Let's be honest that most companies... what they're doing... is not magic. And their CEOs are likely aware that following a Google-like "hiring the smartest people" strategy along with the $$ that goes with that may not be what they need. And during economic contractions, short-termist thinking takes often over. So here we are. But I do think in the long run, yes, it's poisonous. But out of the ashes of that come the next A-player companies.

ProjectArcturis 3y ago
Musk showed that if you fire a lot of your engineers, you very quickly start accumulating tech problems. In his case, it led to the absurd "tweet throttling" policy which opened the door for strategic competitors like Threads.
- cmrdporcupine 3y ago
  Like I said, in the long term, it's poisonous.
  - ProjectArcturis 3y ago
    Long term? It took 9 months!
    - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
      Frankly, I keep waiting for the big bang implosion there, but it seems like it's just going to be a long pathetic whimper.
      - rchaud 3y ago
        The implosion has already occurred. Over 80pct of their pre-takeover headcount is gone. Pricing their API in five-figure sums tells you their ad business is dead. And they're on the hook for $1.2 billion in interest payments annually. Are they even making that in revenue now? We won't know because they're privately held.
area51org 3y ago
The thing with C and D players is that while things can appear like they're going just fine, in fact, they tend to slowly and surely inject damage (badly written code, badly designed systems, ad nauseam) that will likely cost the company tons of money. In other words, penny-wise, pound foolish.

ProjectArcturis 3y ago

No, it's retaliation for the employees voting to unionize. Still real dumb.

paulcole 3y ago

> A players hire A players, B players hire C players, and apparently D players fire A + B players. How many people have you ever met who self-identified as a non-A player?