I agree with you and don’t think they are in bad positions at all!! Also, I think companies need to fire deadweight at some point or else the company will collapse - and crises are the “less bad” time to fire the deadweight you want to, as compared to good times.
Note: I’m not supporting this and I’m not saying I think this is a good move; I’m just observing there may be this more subtle logic at work, in the minds of management making these decisions.
I think companies, especially Google, should have thought about the implications of massive hiring associated with things like X, then shutting them down en mass creating a situation where you have staff playing musical chairs trying to find a place to land.
Just like waiting for that yearly performance cycle to notify someone how they've been underperforming against particular criteria, it's bad to wait for this bulk layoff opportunity to get rid of the "deadweight".
Comments
I agree with you and don’t think they are in bad positions at all!! Also, I think companies need to fire deadweight at some point or else the company will collapse - and crises are the “less bad” time to fire the deadweight you want to, as compared to good times.
Note: I’m not supporting this and I’m not saying I think this is a good move; I’m just observing there may be this more subtle logic at work, in the minds of management making these decisions.
"I think companies need to fire deadweight "
I think companies, especially Google, should have thought about the implications of massive hiring associated with things like X, then shutting them down en mass creating a situation where you have staff playing musical chairs trying to find a place to land.
Just like waiting for that yearly performance cycle to notify someone how they've been underperforming against particular criteria, it's bad to wait for this bulk layoff opportunity to get rid of the "deadweight".