4 ms·
5% of your new hires, doesn't necessarily mean 5% of your company. https://www.statista.com/statistics/273563/number-of-facebook-employees/ https://www.statist
by xracy 2y ago
5% of your new hires, doesn't necessarily mean 5% of your company.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/273563/number-of-facebook-employees/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/273563/number-of-faceboo...
^But let's say you messed up hiring 20% of your company, and then you corrected that (layoffs for the past 2 years). You haven't hired enough people to justify perma-cutting 5%. And the number of functioning employees who stop working in a role isn't going to be as high as 5%.
The reality is that most hires are probably fine in the role they're in. And you don't actually need to be this aggressive in cost-cutting.
- lacker 2y agoThis specific target being discussed was 5% of all headcount, not just new hires. You shouldn't think of all firing as a "mistaken hire". Sometimes you hire someone, and they work effectively for years, and then they kind of "check out" and don't do much work any more. It can be a good decision to hire someone, and then later a good decision to fire them. It's also not a cost-cutting measure per se. Typically when you fire someone you get to replace the headcount with another hire or internal transfer. The point of firing people is to get rid of low performers and replace them with high performers.
- xigency 2y agoThis is somehow better than exploring ways to improve your existing employees' performance?
- qwe----3 2y agoThere are people ready to be hired that aren't checked out
- xigency 2y agoSure. This is a great model to adopt if you believe corporations exist to destroy people. If a construction site was sending formerly qualified people away no longer able to work we would definitely investigate their practices. Tech deserves the same scrutiny.
- thebigspacefuck 2y agoI don't think people are getting "destroyed", they are just bored and want to find something else, but there are factors keeping them in the same place. Interviewing is hard, they may have a lot of stock vesting, the economy is bad, or their life situation makes it inconvenient, etc.
- hnthrowaway6543 2y ago> Sure. This is a great model to adopt if you believe corporations exist to destroy people. corporations exist to make money, or maximize shareholder returns, depending on how you look at it. corporations don't exist to make people happy or solve the fundamental societal issues with capitalism. there's merit to discussing that as a separate topic, but in the context of "capitalism exists and you are operating a business within it", you want to fire low performers and replace them with high performers
- xracy 2y agoGosh, Okay, we can only criticize corporations in the very limited avenues where we discuss specifically how they're meant to make money. Not in any of the other ways those goals lead to questionable decisions.
- hnthrowaway6543 2y agoit's not really a questionable decision though. in the absence of morals, which is what we have in a capitalist society, the way to maximize the success of a corporation is to remove low performers and replace them with high performers. that's common sense. criticizing a company for doing this because it "destroys people" is misplaced anger, as you should be criticizing the system the company operates in, which again, is a whole other discussion
- xigency 2y agoYou have to remember that it is we the people of society that give corporations permission to exist. A band of criminals has no protection over their enterprise. They all go to jail. And why we have these conversations: to build consensus over these rules.
- psunavy03 2y ago"Beatings will continue until morale improves."