4 ms·

Didn't Satya or somebody state in recent months that it was a tactic to get rid of low performers? I believe Meta is doing something similar. Edit: Allegedly n

Didn't Satya or somebody state in recent months that it was a tactic to get rid of low performers? I believe Meta is doing something similar. Edit: Allegedly not. https://www.financialexpress.com/life/technology-microsoft-ceo-satya-nadella-reveals-why-6000-employees-were-laid-off-chief-product-officer-shares-key-advice-for-coders-3862902/ https://www.financialexpress.com/life/technology-microsoft-c... "Nadella addressed the recent layoffs, clarifying that the decision was not based on individual job performance. “This is a structural change, not a reflection of how people were performing,” Nadella explained. He emphasized that Microsoft is shifting its strategic focus, with a renewed emphasis on artificial intelligence (AI), which the company views as a key driver of its long-term vision and growth."

atomicnumber3 1y ago
Also, if it were actually about "low performers", this wouldn't be in the news. They'd just be terminated during/before perf review.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago
  Eh, it can take a lot of political willpower to actually get rid of a low performer. We had an infamous case where it took two years to finally kick some deadweight to the curb. Wanted multiple years of underperforming performance reviews, I guess. Despite what some may claim about market efficiency, this is a public, wildly profitable company, not government. Unfortunately, I have never seen a layoff only remove weak people. Plenty of good gets thrown out with the bad every single time. The only signal I take from someone being laid off is that they were unlucky and probably not a total sycophant.
  - butlike 1y ago
    Think of it more as a "controlled burn wildfire," you want to clear land to let new foliage grow. Same with companies; you clear out some space and see what ideas flourish with the new crop
    - const_cast 1y ago
      Or, more likely, leadership is sloppy and lazy. They make mistakes and color outside the lines, and they pay for it. The hope is that they don't hurt themselves too bad. Luckily for leadership, opportunity cost is completely invisible. They can't travel to alternate realities so they can just pretend they made a good decision and go with that. This is what causes the fun phenomena of "failing upwards" we see in modern American corporate leadership.
  - runjake 1y ago
    We had a case where it took 10 years to cut 3 FTE deadweights and it only happened because of the 2008 Crash and consequential tightening of money flow.
- pjmlp 1y ago
  Somehow on places like HN, people aren't worthy of a job, it is the inverse of Peter Principle, keep firing the low performers until they land a job where they manage not to get fired.
  - atomicnumber3 1y ago
    That's literally how capitalism determines wages, yes. I too have critiques of capitalism. But I often refrain from enumerating them on every single comment that relates to labor because otherwise we never get to actually discuss labor in its current context.
    - pjmlp 1y ago
      Fortunately there are other ways to determine wages. Not every society expects people to achieve maximal performace on quarterly OKR, while management foreman's play rythmic cadence drums and whip slashes.
      - atomicnumber3 1y ago
        Ok sure, dude I am with you, I am a socialist. But this doesn't help us navigate the existing system we have to work in until we can finally establish a truly socialist society.
        pjmlp 1y ago
        It is a matter who we chose to vote on, the unions we empower, the fight for sensible work protection laws. Then again, European socialism is already too left for US capitalism mindset.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
daxfohl 1y ago
Shifting focus is not narrowing focus. They should be able to shift employees accordingly too.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  There's an economic slowdown without relaxing the monetary tightening (because inflation, while relatively mild, is still above target.) Further cutbacks from the level reached by the prior cutbacks due to monetary tightening when the economy was still in robust growth are to be expected, as are relatively transparent rationalizations that try to put an upbeat spin on them instead of the honest “the cost of money has gone up and the return of spending it on higher staffing levels has gone down.”
- darth_avocado 1y ago
  If you have a large sales team for products that are not selling, and you want to invest in building a brand new product, you are not going to be able to move the sales folks into R&D. If you end up building the new product, you may eventually need the sales team, but most businesses in the meantime would reduce the headcount in sales instead of retaining them. I’m not saying that not bad for employees, but shifting focus isn’t always about changing what employees work on.
  - daxfohl 1y ago
    True. I didn't get to the fact that it was sales due to pay wall.
belter 1y ago
AI is the convenient scapegoat. Companies frame mass layoffs as a strategic shift toward AI to boost margins and excite investors, but in reality, it signals a deeper business crisis. Not one of these 9,000 jobs will be meaningfully replaced by AI anytime soon.

atomicnumber3 1y ago

Also, if it were actually about "low performers", this wouldn't be in the news. They'd just be terminated during/before perf review.

0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago
Eh, it can take a lot of political willpower to actually get rid of a low performer. We had an infamous case where it took two years to finally kick some deadweight to the curb. Wanted multiple years of underperforming performance reviews, I guess. Despite what some may claim about market efficiency, this is a public, wildly profitable company, not government. Unfortunately, I have never seen a layoff only remove weak people. Plenty of good gets thrown out with the bad every single time. The only signal I take from someone being laid off is that they were unlucky and probably not a total sycophant.
- butlike 1y ago
  Think of it more as a "controlled burn wildfire," you want to clear land to let new foliage grow. Same with companies; you clear out some space and see what ideas flourish with the new crop
  - const_cast 1y ago
    Or, more likely, leadership is sloppy and lazy. They make mistakes and color outside the lines, and they pay for it. The hope is that they don't hurt themselves too bad. Luckily for leadership, opportunity cost is completely invisible. They can't travel to alternate realities so they can just pretend they made a good decision and go with that. This is what causes the fun phenomena of "failing upwards" we see in modern American corporate leadership.
- runjake 1y ago
  We had a case where it took 10 years to cut 3 FTE deadweights and it only happened because of the 2008 Crash and consequential tightening of money flow.
pjmlp 1y ago
Somehow on places like HN, people aren't worthy of a job, it is the inverse of Peter Principle, keep firing the low performers until they land a job where they manage not to get fired.
- atomicnumber3 1y ago
  That's literally how capitalism determines wages, yes. I too have critiques of capitalism. But I often refrain from enumerating them on every single comment that relates to labor because otherwise we never get to actually discuss labor in its current context.
  - pjmlp 1y ago
    Fortunately there are other ways to determine wages. Not every society expects people to achieve maximal performace on quarterly OKR, while management foreman's play rythmic cadence drums and whip slashes.
    - atomicnumber3 1y ago
      Ok sure, dude I am with you, I am a socialist. But this doesn't help us navigate the existing system we have to work in until we can finally establish a truly socialist society.
      - pjmlp 1y ago
        It is a matter who we chose to vote on, the unions we empower, the fight for sensible work protection laws. Then again, European socialism is already too left for US capitalism mindset.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

daxfohl 1y ago

Shifting focus is not narrowing focus. They should be able to shift employees accordingly too.

dragonwriter 1y ago
There's an economic slowdown without relaxing the monetary tightening (because inflation, while relatively mild, is still above target.) Further cutbacks from the level reached by the prior cutbacks due to monetary tightening when the economy was still in robust growth are to be expected, as are relatively transparent rationalizations that try to put an upbeat spin on them instead of the honest “the cost of money has gone up and the return of spending it on higher staffing levels has gone down.”
darth_avocado 1y ago
If you have a large sales team for products that are not selling, and you want to invest in building a brand new product, you are not going to be able to move the sales folks into R&D. If you end up building the new product, you may eventually need the sales team, but most businesses in the meantime would reduce the headcount in sales instead of retaining them. I’m not saying that not bad for employees, but shifting focus isn’t always about changing what employees work on.
- daxfohl 1y ago
  True. I didn't get to the fact that it was sales due to pay wall.

belter 1y ago

AI is the convenient scapegoat. Companies frame mass layoffs as a strategic shift toward AI to boost margins and excite investors, but in reality, it signals a deeper business crisis. Not one of these 9,000 jobs will be meaningfully replaced by AI anytime soon.