3 ms·

Why would you fire your best and brightest? That would be like throwing out good fruit, when there are spoiled ones. No, it's a very poor idea to force compani

Why would you fire your best and brightest? That would be like throwing out good fruit, when there are spoiled ones. No, it's a very poor idea to force companies to lay off at random.

bastardoperator 2y ago
We should start with the executives who didn't perform/execute, they're the biggest liability.
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  This often does happen along with layoffs when a company is in real trouble. A problem of silicon valley culture is that you basically can't fire anyone for underperformance, so you need to have these sorts of layoffs as a prophylactic measure to cull the heard. So that means you get a cycle of "overhiring" followed by "layoffs" and that is working exactly as intended.
  - bastardoperator 2y ago
    California is at will, you can fire anyone for anything or even nothing. I'm yet to see poor performing executives take themselves out before they take out the people that actually create value. You don't need to have layoffs, you need better leaders, and they're the last ones to get culled, usually running off with bonuses for under-performance and lousy work.
    - pclmulqdq 2y ago
      Legally yes, culturally no.
      - bastardoperator 2y ago
        In certain cultures its okay to hurt people and not face repercussions. We typically refer to those cultures as underdeveloped.
        pclmulqdq 2y ago
        Why is firing someone hurting them when it's not working out? Both the company and the person would be better off doing something else. We have attached shame and this idea that it is "hurtful" likely because it is so rare. At a place like a hedge fund, firing the bottom 10% of people is relatively normal, so being fired can sometimes just mean "you had a bad 6 months" not "you am a terrible person who does not deserve to work anywhere" (which seems to be how tech people and Europeans think of it). In that environment, there isn't any shame involved in the firing and everyone gets on with their lives (usually including a cushy severance package).
        bastardoperator 2y ago
        The executive failed to ensure profitability which is their entire focus. They are the ones that should be laid off first. You're giving them a pass which is literally the crux of the problem, these people are allowed to fail up at others expense. I'm talking about the dropbox layoffs, you're talking about just cause termination which is again completely meaningless in California.
        pclmulqdq 2y ago
        I am telling you that "layoffs" are the mechanism by which silicon valley makes just cause termination culturally acceptable. If a silicon valley firm decided to fire the bottom 5%, they would lose huge amounts of talent that doesn't want to work in a "competitive" environment. If the bottom 10-20% happen to get "laid off" every 3 years, that's just an "unfortunate oversight" and a "management oops" that they take "full responsibility" for. These layoffs do not generally happen when executives and companies fail; they happen as a matter of course. They are, of course, accompanied by rhetoric about executive failure (again, a cultural cover), but nothing more. When executives actually fail, executives get fired.
        bastardoperator 2y ago
        I'm telling you I disagree and I think your explanation is rather comical. Dropbox's slow growth in 2023 and 2024 is directly tied to an under performing executive team. Executive accountability is mostly gone and you're doing a great job furthering my point by trying your hardest to explain why poor leadership is culturally acceptable.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
>That would be like throwing out good fruit, when there are spoiled ones. Have you seen the industry lately? They don't care unless they have leadership who actually has tech experience. The company will float long enough for the next executive to worry about the consequences. To put it more charitably: They may want to care but there's too much beuracracy to holistically figure out performance, and the stats measured are horrible 99% of the time anyway. So yeah, it all comes down to "vibes". Which is probably worse than random for tech workers. They won't feel short term consequences, so it's not a big deal for them if they lose a few "best and brightest" (they will probably leave after the layoff announcements anyway).

Why would you fire your best and brightest? That would be like throwing out good fruit, when there are spoiled ones. No, it's a very poor idea to force companies to lay off at random.

bastardoperator 2y ago

We should start with the executives who didn't perform/execute, they're the biggest liability.

pclmulqdq 2y ago
This often does happen along with layoffs when a company is in real trouble. A problem of silicon valley culture is that you basically can't fire anyone for underperformance, so you need to have these sorts of layoffs as a prophylactic measure to cull the heard. So that means you get a cycle of "overhiring" followed by "layoffs" and that is working exactly as intended.
- bastardoperator 2y ago
  California is at will, you can fire anyone for anything or even nothing. I'm yet to see poor performing executives take themselves out before they take out the people that actually create value. You don't need to have layoffs, you need better leaders, and they're the last ones to get culled, usually running off with bonuses for under-performance and lousy work.
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    Legally yes, culturally no.
    - bastardoperator 2y ago
      In certain cultures its okay to hurt people and not face repercussions. We typically refer to those cultures as underdeveloped.
      - pclmulqdq 2y ago
        Why is firing someone hurting them when it's not working out? Both the company and the person would be better off doing something else. We have attached shame and this idea that it is "hurtful" likely because it is so rare. At a place like a hedge fund, firing the bottom 10% of people is relatively normal, so being fired can sometimes just mean "you had a bad 6 months" not "you am a terrible person who does not deserve to work anywhere" (which seems to be how tech people and Europeans think of it). In that environment, there isn't any shame involved in the firing and everyone gets on with their lives (usually including a cushy severance package).
        bastardoperator 2y ago
        The executive failed to ensure profitability which is their entire focus. They are the ones that should be laid off first. You're giving them a pass which is literally the crux of the problem, these people are allowed to fail up at others expense. I'm talking about the dropbox layoffs, you're talking about just cause termination which is again completely meaningless in California.
        pclmulqdq 2y ago
        I am telling you that "layoffs" are the mechanism by which silicon valley makes just cause termination culturally acceptable. If a silicon valley firm decided to fire the bottom 5%, they would lose huge amounts of talent that doesn't want to work in a "competitive" environment. If the bottom 10-20% happen to get "laid off" every 3 years, that's just an "unfortunate oversight" and a "management oops" that they take "full responsibility" for. These layoffs do not generally happen when executives and companies fail; they happen as a matter of course. They are, of course, accompanied by rhetoric about executive failure (again, a cultural cover), but nothing more. When executives actually fail, executives get fired.
        bastardoperator 2y ago
        I'm telling you I disagree and I think your explanation is rather comical. Dropbox's slow growth in 2023 and 2024 is directly tied to an under performing executive team. Executive accountability is mostly gone and you're doing a great job furthering my point by trying your hardest to explain why poor leadership is culturally acceptable.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

>That would be like throwing out good fruit, when there are spoiled ones. Have you seen the industry lately? They don't care unless they have leadership who actually has tech experience. The company will float long enough for the next executive to worry about the consequences. To put it more charitably: They may want to care but there's too much beuracracy to holistically figure out performance, and the stats measured are horrible 99% of the time anyway. So yeah, it all comes down to "vibes". Which is probably worse than random for tech workers. They won't feel short term consequences, so it's not a big deal for them if they lose a few "best and brightest" (they will probably leave after the layoff announcements anyway).