←back to thread

209 points htrp | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.213s | source
Show context
idkwhattocallme ◴[] No.44444622[source]
For the most part, I'm indifferent to layoffs. Companies over hire and then course correct. It's part of the game. But for MSFT, it rubs me the wrong way. In the past 5 years, their stock has soared (150% on stock and doubled in valuation). They are insanely profitable ($82B profit). They are diverse (no existential business risk). The fact that they are unceremoniously laying off 30K of the people that helped them get there drives home it's just a paycheck, do your job, but know it can and will end when convenient for the company. I know folks will argue, low performers, but really. This "productivity apps" company hired them, onboarded them, made $82B in profit, surely they can figure out how to uplevel folks. Also how do you have a layoff every couple of months for 3 years. Thinking about the middle class in the previous generation, it was unions that effectively ensured a labor job meant a secure future. I wonder if that's the solution (again).
replies(22): >>44444692 #>>44444744 #>>44444872 #>>44445007 #>>44445352 #>>44445600 #>>44445621 #>>44445705 #>>44445722 #>>44445743 #>>44445758 #>>44445853 #>>44445888 #>>44446540 #>>44446696 #>>44447236 #>>44447339 #>>44447678 #>>44447824 #>>44452199 #>>44452368 #>>44457573 #
runjake ◴[] No.44444692[source]
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-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."

replies(4): >>44444757 #>>44444824 #>>44444978 #>>44445520 #
atomicnumber3 ◴[] No.44444757[source]
Also, if it were actually about "low performers", this wouldn't be in the news. They'd just be terminated during/before perf review.
replies(2): >>44445521 #>>44446853 #
0cf8612b2e1e ◴[] No.44445521[source]
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.

replies(2): >>44446235 #>>44446831 #
butlike ◴[] No.44446235[source]
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
replies(1): >>44448416 #
1. const_cast ◴[] No.44448416[source]
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.