Re:Twitter beats estimates, cuts jobs with eye on 2017 profi...
by lucozade on Thursday October 27, 2016 @09:33AM
(#12804965)
I don't know why they specifically chose 9% but I can say that substantial redundancies at a large corporation are horribly complex for both legal and logistical reasons.
Reasons why they might have chosen a number of this magnitude?
10-15% annual attrition for a large corporation is fairly normal i.e. losing that sort of experience spread around an organisation isn't particularly challenging (although you would normally backfill some/all). You wouldn't have to do some massive re-org just for this reason (there might be other reasons to do one of course).
In many jurisdictions there are different rules for layoffs over a certain size. So they may be choosing to trigger rules in some areas and not others. Occasionally I have seen companies choosing to "overcut" in a particular jurisdiction in order to take the legal pain once rather than drip feed pain over a long period.
It may also be that they can cut or sell specific areas so that pervasive impact is limited. This might produce a number that's larger or smaller than needed for cost purposes but helps to control the morale issues as many people see no direct impact.
Edit: another very popular reaons is that that's the number that the analysts are expecting. I didn't say it's a good reason, just a common one.
There are plenty of other reasons for ending up with a number up to and including "ip dip sky blue" that I have seen over the years. Generally though, it's tricky and often unpleasant.
Reasons why they might have chosen a number of this magnitude?
10-15% annual attrition for a large corporation is fairly normal i.e. losing that sort of experience spread around an organisation isn't particularly challenging (although you would normally backfill some/all). You wouldn't have to do some massive re-org just for this reason (there might be other reasons to do one of course).
In many jurisdictions there are different rules for layoffs over a certain size. So they may be choosing to trigger rules in some areas and not others. Occasionally I have seen companies choosing to "overcut" in a particular jurisdiction in order to take the legal pain once rather than drip feed pain over a long period.
It may also be that they can cut or sell specific areas so that pervasive impact is limited. This might produce a number that's larger or smaller than needed for cost purposes but helps to control the morale issues as many people see no direct impact.
Edit: another very popular reaons is that that's the number that the analysts are expecting. I didn't say it's a good reason, just a common one.
There are plenty of other reasons for ending up with a number up to and including "ip dip sky blue" that I have seen over the years. Generally though, it's tricky and often unpleasant.