Skip to main content

Publicly announcing that the 5% of your employees you plan to lay off are the "lowest performers" is probably the meanest thing a company leader could do. First they lose their jobs, then the CEO intentionally tarnishes their reputation in the market so they can't find another?

reshared this

in reply to Matt Linton

silverwizard
silverwizard
•
@Matt Linton I assume the reason is to poison the job market from the highest performers who will inevitably quit after a layoff
@Matt Linton
in reply to Matt Linton

David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)
David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)
• •

I don’t know if it actually tarnishes their reputation. I’ve never been part of such a layoff, but my experience from working with people who were is that it sends a very clear signal that the company is staggeringly bad at judging productivity.

This is much worse, from the company’s perspective l because it tells the remaining good employees that they shouldn’t expect to be promoted or even retained just because they are good at their jobs. And it tells the bad ones that they can probably keep being paid, and maybe even promoted, if they don’t improve, so no reason to stop phoning it in. And that’s a great way to kill productivity across the whole company.

in reply to Matt Linton

Sly Gryphon
Sly Gryphon
• •

there are other factors, like if you are discontinuing a business area, but all other things being equal, whether they announce it or not, companies will get rid of the worst performers if they can.

That's why I laugh when a company claims they only employ the "top 10%", based on hiring stats/applications. That's not the top 10% of market ... that is the top 10% of those looking for jobs ... so closer to they top 10% of the bottom 5%.

To actually employ the top 10% you need to actively headhunt those at the top, and then pay salaries at the top 10% of market.

Hint: if your salaries are benchmarked to market and your employees are in the middle band, you don't have the top 10%; you have average (the middle 50%) workers.

in reply to Sly Gryphon

Matt Linton
Matt Linton
• •

@sgryphon I am aware of how layoffs and business decision making work.

That makes it even more appalling for a CEO to get up there and blame it all on the employees being low performers.

@Sly Gryphon
in reply to Matt Linton

Rick Hunter
Rick Hunter
• •
I pay zero attention to what a prior employer has to say unless I know that employee's prior manager personally. Anything else is too burdened with HR bullshit or shareholder-speak to have any reflection on someone's actual ability to work in my team.
in reply to Matt Linton

Sophie Schmieg
Sophie Schmieg
• •
it's even worse, he stated that he wanted to rehire for the roles. This is the stupid "stack rank and fire" approach again, which leads to managers hiring sacrificial team members to protect their core team.
⇧