One of my reports was laid off from Google. He was a solid performer with an upwards trajectory who had impact beyond the expectations for his level. He was absolutely not dead weight. In fact, if I had to choose the lowest performing person on my team it would not be this person.
It may be done differently elsewhere, but at least in this case it was clearly not dead weight.
I believe that layoffs are happening for the following reason: the major tech companies do not see VC-backed startups as a large threat to their ability to hire in a world where cash is more expensive. The big tech companies are also concerned about the high cost of labor and rising compensation.
They now have an opportunity to lay off a relatively small portion of the workforce, flood the market with people looking for work, and reduce the average value of compensation packages offered to new hires, without causing some existential threat to their ability to hire when they want to. Because pay is based on a comparison to the broader market, this new norm can be used to depress raises and stock refreshes for everybody. We haven't seen what comp looks like for next year at Google yet, but I fully expect the numbers to be pretty dismal compared to last year.
I’m shocked the company fired one of your reports without your input. This completely undermines your leadership and the chain of command. I would be livid.
This is common, line managers are not involved in layoffs to avoid any notion of bias. It’s systematic, algorithmic and the exception process occurs at the Director level.
He was a solid performer with an upwards trajectory who had impact beyond the expectations for his level. He was absolutely not dead weight. In fact, if I had to choose the lowest performing person on my team it would not be this person.
But that's not the only reason why someone might not be worth keeping. Imagine if this employee got a negotiated contract of $2million compensation during the growth phase, company might not care that he was the best performing employee when they want to cut the cost by $2MM.
Comments
One of my reports was laid off from Google. He was a solid performer with an upwards trajectory who had impact beyond the expectations for his level. He was absolutely not dead weight. In fact, if I had to choose the lowest performing person on my team it would not be this person.
It may be done differently elsewhere, but at least in this case it was clearly not dead weight.
I believe that layoffs are happening for the following reason: the major tech companies do not see VC-backed startups as a large threat to their ability to hire in a world where cash is more expensive. The big tech companies are also concerned about the high cost of labor and rising compensation.
They now have an opportunity to lay off a relatively small portion of the workforce, flood the market with people looking for work, and reduce the average value of compensation packages offered to new hires, without causing some existential threat to their ability to hire when they want to. Because pay is based on a comparison to the broader market, this new norm can be used to depress raises and stock refreshes for everybody. We haven't seen what comp looks like for next year at Google yet, but I fully expect the numbers to be pretty dismal compared to last year.
I’m shocked the company fired one of your reports without your input. This completely undermines your leadership and the chain of command. I would be livid.
I am livid.
The general belief is that the decision making didn't go below the VP level. Google is huge, so this often means 4-5 managers up from an IC.
Laid offs are rarely precise tool. There is a time pressure and avoiding uncertainty to get them done which sometimes prevents perfect outcome.
So what was the reasoning in the end?
They refuse to share. I suspect they never will. I do not understand the reasoning for this decision to hide the selection method.
Yep, they don't want to get sued.
This is common, line managers are not involved in layoffs to avoid any notion of bias. It’s systematic, algorithmic and the exception process occurs at the Director level.
But that's not the only reason why someone might not be worth keeping. Imagine if this employee got a negotiated contract of $2million compensation during the growth phase, company might not care that he was the best performing employee when they want to cut the cost by $2MM.
I was this employee's manager. They did not have an unusually large compensation.