4 ms·

> I appreciate the one clean cut vs prolonged bleeding. That's a false dichotomy, you could reduce headcount via attrition which is better in some ways. There

> I appreciate the one clean cut vs prolonged bleeding. That's a false dichotomy, you could reduce headcount via attrition which is better in some ways. There's also no reasoning on product impact. Is the strategy to cut products that aren't making money? Is the strategy to cut 40% across everyone because everyone can go faster? > Owning the decision Does it? It came across to me as an inevitability of AI, not "we over-hired". Layoffs are always a mis-management issue, because the opposite (hiring) is a management issue. If management failed to see where the market was going and now needs a different workforce, that's still a management issue. > respecting the people that got you there There's words, and there's money, and on these it's pretty good. But there's also an empathy with the experience they're about to go through and I'm not sure there's much of that here beyond the words. To do this well you'd need to think through what folks are about to go through and look for ways you can positively impact that beyond actions today. I've seen some companies do this better, helping teams get re-hired elsewhere, splitting off businesses to sell to other companies, incubating startups, there are lots of options. Hard, especially at this scale, but possible. > But realistically, you can't pen a better (or, well, less bad) layoff announcement. And this is the crux of my point, I really think you can. This was a good one, one of the better I've seen, but it's still within the realm of SV companies laying people off. In some companies, countries, industries, this would look very different, and better.

belval 8mo ago
> you could reduce headcount via attrition which is better in some ways I don't think reducing via attrition is better for the company, for the employees 100%, but attrition would be your people moving to other companies and retirement. It means that you are effectively bleeding your people with options (usually above average) and those with the most experience in favor of "the rest".
- danpalmer 8mo ago
  It's a nuanced trade-off. It's worse for the company as you said, it may be worse for the employees because some will leave from burnout without severance, those remaining will have more work to do typically. But my point was that what was presented was a false dichotomy and that framing it as such is disingenuous to employees receiving those comms.
  - fastball 8mo ago
    It is not a false dichotomy. Reducing headcount via attrition is a subset of "prolonged bleeding", if you've already decided it needs to happen.
    - danpalmer 8mo ago
      I guess you could consider it that, I read "prolonged bleeding" as more smaller layoffs. That's a fair point. Although then I'd say it's still disingenuous to frame it that negatively when many may see it as a better option.
vessenes 8mo ago
You cannot attrite 40% of the company in 5 months, without creating an incredibly toxic environment. Dorsey knows this; ultimately he lost Twitter over his inability to right size it. I would bet dollars to donuts he promised himself he wouldn't do it again - under no circumstances is 40% cut over six months preferable to a clean fast cut.
- ezfe 8mo ago
  Voluntary severance/ERO is possible without a bad culture. I’ve seen it done, people love it.
  - SoftTalker 8mo ago
    What is the age distribution of employees at Block? I'd guess it skews quite young. You won't have much natural attrition or interest in early retirement. And in this job market, voluntary severance is also not very attractive.
    - overfeed 8mo ago
      Young people love to be paid to switch jobs too - who would refuse 20 weeks of doubled income? From Squares perspective, this would lead to an adverse selection, because Square would lose the people who can easily get jobs elsewhere.
      - ezfe 8mo ago
        That is working on the assumption that those employees are meaningfully better than the ones who remain. If you have people you feel are under performers then yes, ideally you would lose those specifically but then it’s not a reorganization it’s a performance based layoff where you’re outright saying “you’re not good at your job”
        overfeed 8mo ago
        > That is working on the assumption that those employees are meaningfully better The assumption that people who get hired after interviewing are "better" than those who are fall off the hiring funnel underpins the entire hiring process that even Square relies on. Does the assumption seem outlandish to you?
weird-eye-issue 8mo ago
> prolonged bleeding. > That's a false dichotomy, you could reduce headcount via attrition which is better in some ways. That's the same thing. And they can't control which roles are lost. It's the worst thing for the company itself and those remaining.
giarc 8mo ago
>That's a false dichotomy, you could reduce headcount via attrition which is better in some ways. I disagree. Slow bleeding just means everyone in the company walks around thinking they are next, never knowing when the next set of cuts are going to happen or when they are finished. Cutting 40% is a quick blow, and everyone that is left knows they are safe.
- overfeed 8mo ago
  Attrition by definition implies no cuts: just people leaving for the usual reasons people leave, and not replacing them. Attrition can be accelerated by providing incentives like exit bonuses.
marcyb5st 8mo ago
I don't agree about the attrition bit. On paper you're right, but in reality while doing so you give the incentive to higher-ups to set in place measures that make the life of their underlings atrocious. Mandatory RTO for no clear reason, jumping through hoops to get anything done, cut to budgets, ... . At least that what I experienced and talking with friends that was the case for them as well.

belval 8mo ago

> you could reduce headcount via attrition which is better in some ways I don't think reducing via attrition is better for the company, for the employees 100%, but attrition would be your people moving to other companies and retirement. It means that you are effectively bleeding your people with options (usually above average) and those with the most experience in favor of "the rest".

danpalmer 8mo ago
It's a nuanced trade-off. It's worse for the company as you said, it may be worse for the employees because some will leave from burnout without severance, those remaining will have more work to do typically. But my point was that what was presented was a false dichotomy and that framing it as such is disingenuous to employees receiving those comms.
- fastball 8mo ago
  It is not a false dichotomy. Reducing headcount via attrition is a subset of "prolonged bleeding", if you've already decided it needs to happen.
  - danpalmer 8mo ago
    I guess you could consider it that, I read "prolonged bleeding" as more smaller layoffs. That's a fair point. Although then I'd say it's still disingenuous to frame it that negatively when many may see it as a better option.

vessenes 8mo ago

You cannot attrite 40% of the company in 5 months, without creating an incredibly toxic environment. Dorsey knows this; ultimately he lost Twitter over his inability to right size it. I would bet dollars to donuts he promised himself he wouldn't do it again - under no circumstances is 40% cut over six months preferable to a clean fast cut.

ezfe 8mo ago
Voluntary severance/ERO is possible without a bad culture. I’ve seen it done, people love it.
- SoftTalker 8mo ago
  What is the age distribution of employees at Block? I'd guess it skews quite young. You won't have much natural attrition or interest in early retirement. And in this job market, voluntary severance is also not very attractive.
  - overfeed 8mo ago
    Young people love to be paid to switch jobs too - who would refuse 20 weeks of doubled income? From Squares perspective, this would lead to an adverse selection, because Square would lose the people who can easily get jobs elsewhere.
    - ezfe 8mo ago
      That is working on the assumption that those employees are meaningfully better than the ones who remain. If you have people you feel are under performers then yes, ideally you would lose those specifically but then it’s not a reorganization it’s a performance based layoff where you’re outright saying “you’re not good at your job”
      - overfeed 8mo ago
        > That is working on the assumption that those employees are meaningfully better The assumption that people who get hired after interviewing are "better" than those who are fall off the hiring funnel underpins the entire hiring process that even Square relies on. Does the assumption seem outlandish to you?

weird-eye-issue 8mo ago

> prolonged bleeding. > That's a false dichotomy, you could reduce headcount via attrition which is better in some ways. That's the same thing. And they can't control which roles are lost. It's the worst thing for the company itself and those remaining.

giarc 8mo ago

>That's a false dichotomy, you could reduce headcount via attrition which is better in some ways. I disagree. Slow bleeding just means everyone in the company walks around thinking they are next, never knowing when the next set of cuts are going to happen or when they are finished. Cutting 40% is a quick blow, and everyone that is left knows they are safe.

overfeed 8mo ago
Attrition by definition implies no cuts: just people leaving for the usual reasons people leave, and not replacing them. Attrition can be accelerated by providing incentives like exit bonuses.

marcyb5st 8mo ago

I don't agree about the attrition bit. On paper you're right, but in reality while doing so you give the incentive to higher-ups to set in place measures that make the life of their underlings atrocious. Mandatory RTO for no clear reason, jumping through hoops to get anything done, cut to budgets, ... . At least that what I experienced and talking with friends that was the case for them as well.