This article is proof positive of that, it misses a whole slew of important considerations and will likely result in a mass exodus of the people that keep the company running within the next couple of months.
I've had to lay off people before, this is not how it is done.
well i have no insider knowledge of any kind, i just looked left and right beyond the blog post instead of making assumptions.
This company is dysfunctional. They have a CTO that doesn't report to the CEO but where the CEO will cross their lines of command to give direct orders to the CTO anyway, they treat their employees like they treat their docker images (like cattle, instead of like pets), they promote people internally and make their first marching orders to take the axe to the org chart, specifically the team from which they got promoted out of.
This won't end well.
Just read this thread and see how many people are wrong-footed by the article.
Honestly, i think your reaction to having an assumption collapse is rather terrible
The computer in this story was nothing but a human's pencil and paper.
CTO: I can't do that on my 2nd day.
CEO: I thought your interests align with the company. It is your job to align everyone under you to our direction.
CTO: Yes, of course. Right away.
If it's the best reply they can come up with, they're not competent enough for the position.
You can spin it however you want, come up with some great arguments, but if the CEO decided to fire people, I don't think he takes that decision lightly so when he/she presents that decision you can count that it really is the last option he has.
It all comes down to trust. Trust your CEO that he has no other choice, maybe explore alternatives. But if he is a really good CEO, even if you fight it and argue for it, you'll wind up at the same conclusion he did. In fact, 9/10 you'll wind up at the same conclusion he did. Remember, it's his job to convince and lead people so he's probably better than you at that.
It's the CEO's job to be able to weigh different kinds of risks and make a decision. So bubbling up your concerns is the correct answer.
Intra-team relationships are super important, as are the degrees to which the team members have arrived at the company, how long they have known each other, whether they knew each other prior to their arrival and so on. Before you know it you have a mass walk-out on your hands with those that have options leaving first.
The best way to deal with this is to do it very gradually and taking great care to not inadvertently wreck the core structure of the tech department.
It's absolutely fine to face à situation that is new and that you feel you lack knowledge and experience on. But as a leader and the guy in charge you should not refuse to deal with it, you need to find a way and people to advise you. Don't think that CEOs, Generals, Heads of States, etc know everything, no they know how to seek information and advice but the final decision and responsibility is on them.
The complete lack of empathy on display here is proof positive for me that this person does not have what it takes to be a successful manager.
I've just taken my company through a 50% drop in revenues and we've survived, stronger than ever, not a single person got laid off and all our bills are paid. That didn't happen because I treat my co-workers, partners and employees as replaceable cogs and if I would give my second in command the order to get rid of 50% of our workforce I would expect some serious pushback on that. Not that I would ever do that.
If you don't agree with a course of action then by all means do make your point in a constructive way.
But once the decision is made then you cannot shun your responsibility and refuse to implement it. Either "disagree and commit" to the best of you ability or quit.
One the contrary, it is perfectly fine to ask for enough time to be able to accurately assess the situation.
Sometimes a person that is regarded as low skill can motivate other team members to hugely increase their productivity by building a positive atmosphere.
Umm - Isn't that just part of the job? Most workers are expected to at least not _negatively_ impact the working environment, while being at least as competent as their co-workers.
This actually sounds more like someone trying to get co-workers to cover their short-comings for them...
I used better evaluation criteria when figuring out who to kick out of my World of Warcraft guild than this guy used on his employees. Anyone that defends OP's post clearly has never led a team of anything or been in charge of people.
Writing a program to "optimize" who to fire is bonkers and shows a clear lack of leadership strategy.
Another option would be to choose the team on who you just "like the most". Maybe this would have been more to your liking? It's more human, I guess. However, notice that there is still a criteria and still an evaluation phase, you can't avoid it (unless you pick by random).
None of this means that you have to use text-to-speech and have the computer read out the list of names who were fired. You can still go to each team member and talk about it, like a human.