Since business is going exceptionally well, we have the luxury of conducting layoffs from a position of strength rather than necessity. Wall Street generally prefers companies that produce the same revenue with fewer employees, so we are removing 10% of the employees and setting the expectation that the remaining 90% will figure it out.
I don't consider myself to be pro-business, but... how is this controversial?
It reflects incredibly poorly on management, bordering on incompetence. If those 10% of employees were needed, then management obviously shouldn’t fire them just to make the stock price go up. If they weren’t actually needed, then management shouldn’t have hired them in the first place. If they’re only sorta needed, then that means management wasn’t able to come up with any ideas to grow the business.
Furthermore, regardless of what expectations are set, it’s not the remaining employees’ job to figure out how to do 111% of the work. That’s literally the job of management.
Comments
I don't consider myself to be pro-business, but... how is this controversial?
It reflects incredibly poorly on management, bordering on incompetence. If those 10% of employees were needed, then management obviously shouldn’t fire them just to make the stock price go up. If they weren’t actually needed, then management shouldn’t have hired them in the first place. If they’re only sorta needed, then that means management wasn’t able to come up with any ideas to grow the business.
Furthermore, regardless of what expectations are set, it’s not the remaining employees’ job to figure out how to do 111% of the work. That’s literally the job of management.