Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Welcome2B_Here t1_j4warx4 wrote

If anyone believes layoffs necessarily target "low performers," I have a bridge to sell.


AnimusFlux t1_j4we9n0 wrote

If you've managed more than 20 people in your life, I'm gonna go ahead and guess at least one (5%) of them wasn't a good performer. That doesn't mean they're a bad person or that they don't deserve a job, it just means they're not doing well at the job they were hired for. Someone who is truly unable to do their job makes everyone's lives harder and they'd probably be better off doing something else in the long run.

I can also tell you from experience that loads of managers lack the grit required to fire even the most toxic employee. If you've ever worked with someone who you wished would just get fired, then maybe you'd have been better off if your company practiced occasional layoffs. If you've never worked with someone like that... are you hiring?

Edit: I think I misinterpreted your comment. Of course, layoffs don't only target low performers and typically have a lot more to do with corporate restructuring. Low performers just get bundled in to kill two birds with one stone.


Welcome2B_Here t1_j4wg3f2 wrote

Of course layoffs naturally include low performers, but they also include employees across the board. The highest weighted metric is usually compensation relative to what's perceived as the "market" rate, which is also a sliding scale and open to interpretation.

This idea that these types of layoffs are simply "trimming the fat" just doesn't jibe with my first-hand experience, nor the second-hand experience learned through other employees. I've seen some of the best performers get axed while the sycophants and low performers get to stick around.


Youvebeeneloned t1_j4yowa4 wrote

Considering the yearly average for tech is 11-13%... then yeah its probably targeting low performers given its performance review time for employees at companies whose fiscal match the calendar year.