4 ms·
Laying off then hiring should be a positive. Presumably the laid-off were your worst talent and workers, while the new hires are at least randomly distributed
by vikingerik 3y ago
Laying off then hiring should be a positive. Presumably the laid-off were your worst talent and workers, while the new hires are at least randomly distributed and should be selected towards the upper end of the talent range.
- ok_dad 3y agoAgain, that’s not how it works. You don’t lay off bad employees, you lay off randomly or lay off teams you no longer need or want. Layoffs are an opex reduction exercise, not a house cleaning.
- nradov 3y agoThat's not always true. Some layoffs cut entire organizational units regardless of individual performance. Others cut a certain percentage across the board (sometimes with exceptions for strategic growth areas). The CEO might tell every manager to cut 10%, and obviously they're going to take that chance to eliminate their worst performers.
- nonameiguess 3y agoUnless you managed to somehow change the intellectual characteristics of the labor pool in the span of less than a year, this is impossible on an industry-wide basis. At best, one company gains and another loses, but even if it evens out, the deadweight loss of unemployment payouts, time spent applying and interviewing, onboarding and offboarding, relationship upheavals, all make this a net negative activity socially.