How would this be better? I saw first hand the damage caused by 4 hours between pre-announcing lay-offs and completing them. Weeks would mean the entire company comes to a stand-still.
There is no "right" answer in this situation; it's a mistake to look for one. The distraction comes regardless and the goal of a decent leader is to minimize it while trying to be thoughtful to those leaving, but you're still taking away someone's job; you can't make that a positive experience.
me: "Phew, OK realtor let's close on this new house purchase! It's a big investment but my future looks great!"
<two weeks later>
CEO: "I'm sorry but I was wrong and you are terminated effective immediately."
Bank: "Congrats on your house purchase closing, your new monthly payment of $XXXX is due in two weeks!"
How is THAT a better situation than warning people there could be instability ahead? People are being thrown completely under the bus with no warning.
People need to plan for that happening, and not just assume it can't happen to them. This example employee should have thought "Hmmm, I should wait some years and save a good amount extra just in case".
I wish it weren't this way, but this is the reality of the world. Yes, it means moving slower and buying a house later (and for more money) - or never at all, but it isn't going to change and our hands are tied.
That has turned out to be some of the worst financial decisions I ever made. While my contemporaries were buying house for 4-5x+ their salary and over time those houses doubled, tripped in value, my house also doubled and tripped in value, but now the difference between the houses I could have purchased and the ones I did, are now in the millions of dollars (aka I have to find 2+ million to upgrade to a house only slightly better than the one I own). Meaning if I want to move up in the housing market to a house I could have purchased a couple years back for just a slightly higher percentage of my income is basically out of reach.
So a lot of people complain about what it takes to get their foot in the door, but the spread between houses has massively widened as well. Just 10 years ago 1.5 million would have gotten a house in the top couple percent, now that number is probably closer to 7-9 million. So even if your salary doubled or tripped, unless you purchased at the max of your previous salary its like starting all over in the housing market.
(and just to make this post longer, this is largely the result of interest free money, a few years back I realized that steady state interest one pays should always be just slightly higher than inflation. Anytime the inflation != interest rates happens it throws things out of wack. AKA while people are complaining about the current rates, if inflation is 8-9% the fed should have immediately reacted with 7-8% rates, which would have massively hammered the system, but apparently no one at us fed/etc has really studied control systems enough to understand that adjusting rates every couple months will never result in a stable system, especially if they fail to react to changes strongly. Their current strategy entirely assumes that inflation/etc slowly rises or falls.).
I could easily have been a billionaire today if I'd made different moves (like buying all the MSFT or AMZN I could when they went public). I know a billionaire who did just that - he borrowed every penny he could and put it into MSFT at the IPO.
Of course, I was also urged to buy bitcoin when it was $500. I didn't. Shrug.
I placed multiple offers on foreclosed houses (as did a few other people I know) none of us got them because the banks refused to sell them for less than the previous mortgage amount. They let houses sit vacant for 2-3 years until the market was basically recovered in ~2011. One of the ones I bid on, was listed for X, I bid that, was the only bidder and 6 months later the bank counter offered for X + 25%.
So, individuals got screwed on both sides, the people who lost their house, and the "savers" who were denied the deals they were waiting for.
(edit: Just to add to this, basically in auction terms the banks all set a hidden reserve price equal to the previous max while simultaneously listing them for far less than the reserve. It create an optical illusion of the housing market being cheap and full of unsold houses, while people who were actually underwater felt trapped because they would have to take a hit selling the house, and people trying to buy houses couldn't actually buy any without buying the "overpriced" ones being sold by actual individuals. A few people got lucky and bought at below market rates from individuals who had owned them long enough to be able to afford to sell at these lower prices, but those were pretty competitive even during the slowest part of the market. I was regularly outbid (I think it was something like 12 times), despite bidding over listing on them.)
I was doing a data science project for a class in 2013. Instructor wanted it implemented and internet visible, with encouragement for users to "vote with bitcoin". It was around $14-$15 at the time. I passed on doing the project...
The latter is not necessarily true relative to other countries and showcases people don't understand the long term influence, or lack there off, of various contract structures.
The US has at-will employment dangling a sword of Damocles over your head 24/7. Well, here we have temporary contracts not getting extended to permanent, and the status of a 'permanent' contract being the only way to open doors, which employers will royally abuse to lower other benefits.
US or not, the premise remains the same. Don't be reliant on a party not looking out for your best interests.
> And companies with strong employee unions do not have this issue of suddenly and without notice firing their staff...
Lots of people don't work at a place with a union, and don't have access to unionized employment due to industry, current geography, etc. Also we're seeing a huge anti-union push by a lot of interests right now, recently notable being Starbucks.
Companies doing layoffs often give 2 weeks notice in the form of a 2 week severance check and escorting them out. This is for good reason - very few people are productive as a short timer, and some are even destructive.
I'm not saying companies good employees bad. I'm saying these things cut both ways all the time.
As usual, a stinker here and there ruins it for everyone.
If anything, it's the employee with more power.
Employees have special rights. For example, meeting payroll is the first priority of any employer. Any disruption on that and the state will hammer the employer into a pulp. Employees have all sorts of legal advantages in pressing frivolous lawsuits against employers. I've had lawyers from BigCorp tell me they just settle the frivolous ones, because it's far cheaper than going to court, especially with the court heavily biased against them. The suing employees know this, which is why they do it.
Employees can walk away at their whim. They can walk away if they don't like the cut of your jib, or because they don't want to work for a woman, or for any racist reason they feel like. An employer cannot.
Employee candidates can ask any question they like of the potential employer. Not so the other way.
me: "Why are we talking about layoffs at all? Probably should start planning for contingencies"
Don't get me wrong: There's almost certainly a more transparent way of doing this that doesn't involve straight up lying, and it's crummy as hell, but there's some amount of personal responsibility here in terms of knowing how to read between the lines.
If on the other hand you take the perspective of supporting a bottom up independent worker interests above a business's (I fall in this category), then your point is quite valid. Information asymmetry here put me in a terrible situation, if you would have told me earlier, I might have made different decisions. That might not include leaving, but it might have included tidying up my resume and prepping for interviews, just-in-case. Maybe I follow through or maybe I just keep some backups lined up in case things go south. Some may just pass the risk back to the business and jump ship since they assume they have better odds doing this and may even get a promotion.
Personally I don't believe any business leadership's words, I skim financials, I watch movements in the laborforce especially around management, I look at markets and make my own interpretation. I assume they're providing intentional incomplete information to their advantage and try to infer reality from that combined with the other data sources. Businesses are not your friends and will lie to you to their advantage above all else. I'm not a subscriber to Hanlon's razor when it comes to self-interest. What can typically be attributed to self-interest should be considered above incompetence, especially when looking at something as strategic and methodical as a modern business structure that have countless meetings to sit around and discuss and analyze these sorts of things or contract specialized skilled services in these domains.
I spoke to the (internal) recruiter about my accomplishments based on a “career document” that was updated.
I did no special technical preparation for my interview loop (BigTech cloud consulting - app dev). I only practiced behavioral questions based on my career document.
Keeping your resume tidy is more of an expression (making sure you have marketable skills), it doesn't take much effort to update experience and new or shifts in skilling.
As to interviews, I could go on about the current broken interview process, but suffice it to say that interview prepping takes several weeks of sitting through competitive programming problems for most people.
For those who presumably need no sort of prep time, good for you, I however need prep time. I also value my personal time and have no desire sitting around for an hour or more every day playing with competitive programming problems so you'll have fresh memory for interviews that use this silly approach. As such, like many people, I need a little bit of lead time before I can get through all the hurdles. I've yet to see a single employer who doesn't use this process in the past 4 years although maybe I have a bad sample. This includes big tech, mid and small tech and some big/mid that aren't even tech focused I spoke with at different points. I'm glad you managed to find a sane employer that considered prior experience, a resume, and traditional interview process. That is not the norm in my area to say the least.
I really had no interest in the shit show of the modern software engineering interviewing process since I had never had to do a coding interview in my life on the enterprise dev side.
I did know “cloud” by 2020 and had customer facing experience so I was able to pivot to app dev cloud consulting and my BigTech interview was mostly behavioral.
because we have the rest of our lives to live
- update career document
- update resume
- reach out to my network on LinkedIn and schedule a lunch with former coworkers
- sleep well at night.
I’ve been through a layoff, I’ve had to jump ship quickly (a company was acquired by private equity), and I had a sudden 10% paycut (2020). Guess how little I stressed?
Interview ready doesn’t mean “practice grinding leetCode”. It means always be in a position when opportunity knocks (or you need to find a door to knock on), you’re ready.
No. It's about the fact that it's literally the CEO's job to put the business's interests above those of any individual employee. Anything else wouldn't make sense.
I definitely never went into buying a house without having 3 to six months worth of bills in the bank.
On the other hand, as a software developer for 25 years, it’s never taken me more than a month to go from “I’m looking for a job” to “having an offer”. I’ve changed jobs 8 times abs six between 2008.
Well to be honest, this last time took two months just because the hiring process takes longer at BigTech. But I wasn’t really looking. It just fell into my lap.
Speaking of which, even in todays world. Any software developer who worked at Unity shouldn’t have any trouble finding another job quickly. That’s intended to be a compliment.
Congratulations on being one of the most privileged people in the country. You realize ~50% of the country doesn't even have enough money in their checking/savings to cover a $400 emergency expense right? https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/personal-finance/articles/49...
This isn't a "well just stop buying avocado toast, and start pulling yourself up by bootstraps!" problem. This is a systemic problem with wage stagnation and complete decimation of the middle class over the last decades. The fact is the average American can only dream of having privilege you mention like not depending on their current employment to pay next month's rent/mortgage.
Software engineers at Unity are not “suffering” making between $196K to $330K+
https://www.levels.fyi/company/Unity-Technologies/salaries/S...
My attitude was the same when I was making $33K as an operator/programmer in 1996 and when I bought my first house when I was making $70k in 2002.
Also, if you are living paycheck to paycheck with $400 in your account, you shouldn’t be buying a house. A house comes with maintenance and responsibilities that you’re not going to be able to pay for. The parent poster used the scenario of someone buying a house and then getting laid off.
Great quote. Yet I see a lot of really nice cars humping down the highway. Teslas, Bimmers, Rivians, Ionics, etc. Er'ybody on their iPhone 13ProMax AND their AppleWatch. Spending like there's no tomorrow.
Like the man said about living within your means...
Is there a subset of that 50% who is living paycheck to paycheck despite having excellent financial discipline and trying to live within their means? Probably, but without knowing what percentage it is, the 50% (and I've recently heard 64%) doesn't tell you much of anything.
- basic economic news though mainstream news sources, which has been plentiful
- the overall financial health of their employer and the sector in which they operate, which usually make up a significant chunk of all-hands meetings, so there's no excuse for not having been exposed to it
- the health of their product/service and its value to their employer as a whole, which they should know simply by virtue of, y'know, doing their jobs
then frankly they're going to be blindsided by pretty much everything in their professional career, not just a mere layoff.
I wonder about the legality of doing all this...
Actually 30-60 days depending on when you close. And candidly, that should be enough time to find a new job for a company with a reasonable hiring process.
This literally happened to me a few years ago. It was stressful but I was fine.
… or living well above your means in the time of asset bubbles left and right?
Let's say you and your buddy both make $125K.
If you bought a small $100K serious-fixer-upper house in order to live below your means in 2019 and your buddy bought a large $600K house at the same time which he could barely afford, then who would have "saved" more by mid-2021 when you both sold at 2X valuation?
At some point "living below your means and saving money" needs to turn into "you need to spend money to make money".
"Saving" does not protect you from inflation and it is of nearly zero value in the case of hyperinflation.
I’ve done investment real estate before - I had three houses (including the one I lived in) with mortgages of over $500K when I was making $75K a year. Guess what happened when 2008 came?
How is that person who didn’t save, got laid off and having a $600K mortgage going to fair?
Fast forward to 2022. I have a house in the burbs of a major metropolitan area that at the time I had it built was less than 2x our household income (2016) and I had savings. Since we were living below our means, when I had a 10% (Covid related) pay cut, it stung, but I shrugged and kept it moving.
Saving money is not a defense against inflation. It’s meant as a safety net so when the stock market crashes and you lose your job it’s just a minor inconvenience instead of a major life event.
I don't think a sudden layoff at any time is an assurance for workers in the sense that it is better to pretend everything is Ok until it isn't.
I'm kind of tired of seeing this "well actually, in Europe..." -- there's a reason there's zero major tech innovation happening in Europe. There's a reason Google/FB/Netflix/etc. and 99% of other major software unicorns (save Spotify and handful of others) are from the US. To be successful as a company, you need to be nimble, not burn your runway with bureaucracy.
Working for a startup is a risk and money, for the time being, is very tight.
ie “#2 in the US is Stripe, the company that lets you pay on a credit card. Not sure if I’d be trumpeting that as innovative!”
Thanks for telling us you know nothing about Europe.
And as for unicorns, we may have few of them but we have many, many profitable and innovative companies that stick around for the long term.
You don’t think any of that has to do with the employment contract?
>You don’t think any of that has to do with the employment contract?
The Netherlands has a legal notice period of 1 month baseline. Despite that, many companies opt for a longer employee notice period, which then requires them to double that amount from their side. Doesn't sound like the employment contract is at fault here as much as the risk-averse culture, when nothing is keeping these companies from keeping the notice period shorter. Surely, a talented developer does not have to worry about finding a new job so much it requires more than a month.
God forbid I mention Japan, which despite still using fax machines and having similar structures, still produces plenty of global products. Unless your idea of tech is "just software".
It's not as simple as you try to imply. Spend a bit more time doing research between what is legally required, what employers offer and what developers realistically need.
What's the layoff policy in Japan? I would say it used to be 'never' and that hasn't been the case for some time, but a lot of the innovation ramp for them occurred before the 90's recession that started breaking the social contracts, so that isn't really a point in dvt's favor.
Culture definitely plays a role here, as does need (see also the Netherlands who send consultants worldwide to talk about water management). People like to talk about how different Scandinavian culture is from American culture, but from what I know of Japanese culture, it's at least as far away from say Norway as Norway is away from America. So if dvt thinks that Europe is missing some secret sauce and not just American Exceptionalism, I would say that Japan has substituted a different sauce to good effect.
Layoffs can still occur for economic reasons, but that's the same as in Europe.
>not just American Exceptionalism
There is very little "exceptional" about America in and of itself. What America has, is a lot of cash to throw at getting exceptional people and mess around forever. When your markets are huge, you can throw huge money and gain it back. When your markets are small, you can't.
Which then comes back to the question "so why don't European countries target the English market like the US does? Why care for your local market if you can make much bigger money targeting the global one?". And unfortunately, I don't know why beyond risk-aversity, culture and "that's just how it went". At least in Japan, the Japanese-only market is still far bigger than most [insert non-English European language]-only markets.
Point being, if dvt is arguing "it is the bureaucracy!", that doesn't explain why Japan works, China works, and why Europe tech scene continues to import bureaucracy-heavy approaches from the US tech scene, like you know, big Agile.
I had to listen to too many rants about the quality of Tim Berners Lee's code to allow that he invented the web. I place too high a premium on execution, which is a big part of my problem with IP and patents. You made a box. Congratufuckinglations. Can you make a million of them? And not chop anyone's fingers off?
If the web were the automobile, he's no living embodiment of Rudolf Diesel. Maybe closer to a valued employee of James Watt. He was channeling Engelbart, channeling Bush, and stuffing it into SGML.
Rudolf Diesel, there's a European inventor. We went a little crazy with that car thing. Sorry about that.
Edit: That was also 30 years ago for the one, 40 for the other. That's quite a long time. Whole countries have cycled though low-end tech to innovator to resting on their laurels in that time.
You going to tell us the US tech market is not boggled down by bureaucracy? Surely you jest. Do you need a reminder who sets the trend for the remainder of the market?
It's important to note that this is typically a legal requirement (e.g. the requirement to consult prior to redundancy in the UK) rather than something typically done out of any good-will by the companies/employers.
Since businesses haven't managed to lobby such legislation requirements in for workers to give notice (largely because at-will is typically beneficial to them) and just use contract law where it matters (public personalities, etc.) you can just show up and quit legally, without legal repercussions.
With that said, cultural protections have been put into place under job history in the application process. If I were to show up and without a very good reason tell me employer I quit effective immediately, I can do so unlike the European cases described.
But is this really freedom or an illusion of freedom? Many in the US are living paycheck-to-paycheck to survive. They're financially leveraged and can't really just quit, they need to line up an opportunity and have minimal savings to protect them. For them they can make the choice but it's a bad choice for them and most of the time they won't. Businesses know this and leverage it. The pandemic labor market offered a shift in this giving some bargaining power back to labor but it seems to be clawing right back to businesses again, probably for quite some time.
In what are classified as more professional positions, you're expected to give 2-weeks notice. Many employers request references and if you're honest during your interview, leaving without notice in most cases will require a good explanation and a competent interviewer, otherwise you're a red flag no hire almost immediately and there's a pool of others behind you without said red flag. So, I could quit tomorrow, but I'd have to be very careful with my next employer as to how I go about referencing my previous work, why I left, etc. In most cases I can't really just show up and quit, I need to give notice and wait. Perhaps that's not as long as some European countries closer to the order of 4 weeks IIRC but it's not as free as it might appear to be for the majority of laborers.
I've worked at multiple companies where we had layoffs announced months in advance. That is the normal sane way of doing things. If it is does really competently, the company starts by offering a voluntary severance package (though that does tend to get rid of the best employees first...).
Yes it sucks, but a transparently and competently run company will let everyone know that the finances aren't looking great and that layoffs will be coming, but they'll try to have everything worked out soon so worry isn't hanging over people's head for long.
Edit: Actually, here's a thought. Unity has RSU's. That means it misled... its investors. Which (like everything) is securities fraud.
Don't lie to your employees.
> There is no "right" answer in this situation
There are better and worse answers though. Lying and/or being incompetent are terrible answers.
The employees stopped working and looted everything in the building. Reportedly, trucks backed up to the loading dock where everything was carried off.
They all got their paychecks, but they hadn't done any work in the 3 months and the building was picked clean.
Insurance is a good idea to cover catastrophic loss, but if you can self-insure for other things, you'll be way better off.
Yup. I was at EA during his "leadership" too. Never got the axe during the couple of layoffs we went through, but had a lot of good friends who did.
His hiring style seemed to be "open the floodgates periodically and let everyone in, then cull the ones we don't like after a couple of years". Massively demoralizing.
I would never work for a company with him at the helm.
Back in another life I was once an intern at a well known, but past-its-prime tech company.
The company announced a (1st time ever) layoff in the morning and I got see the guards carry the boxes from cubicles. The VP of our department (responsible for much of the core technology of our products) sent out an email at around 11AM telling everyone we need to focus and that there won't be any more cut to our department, since we are central to our products.
Come 2PM and all of us received an email saying that the VP has resigned from his position effectively immediately.
Imagine what this does to the employee moral.
Not necessarily. As a CEO, you suddenly see your sales plunge. You run the numbers and think: is it just a panic/fluke? Is it going to bounce back? Are we losing the sales to a new competitor?
You eventually conclude that the drop is due to a market downturn. You realize that you have a runway of 1 year, and cannot raise more capital. Se, your choices:
1. You keep cruising like nothing happened. The sales may bounce back within a year (in which case it was a good decision). They may decline further 6 months in (dropping your runway to 3 months). Or they may stabilize at the new level for a while (so when the runway reaches 6 months, you think again).
2. You fire X% of the people. Your runway is now Y years. If the sales bounce back earlier, it's a hassle to re-hire, but is doable. If the cooler market lasts longer, you may need to reiterate.
Making the correct decision is always a guess. Like trying to figure out whether to buy or sell a stock. You observe the market, you try to understand, and then you decide.
As a CEO, if someone asks you on the spot "are layoffs planned", any answer rather than a complete denial will be treated as a "yes": people with better offers will leave, other will start looking for jobs. If in a month the sales bounce back, you lost your bet.
Riccitiello needs to go. As another commenter put it, Unity is too important of a product for its stewards to be languishing like this.
Wouldn't strong leadership have prevented the need for layoffs at all?
lol. keep pissing off employees and see how long you can 'keep the firm going'.
that mindset makes no damn sense.
Sociopathic CEOs actually believe this. Maintaining employee morale is crucial to the long term health of a company. Ignore it and you suffer a slow death from brain drain and disaffected employees. "They pretend to care about us, I pretend to care about my job."
Starting from 6 months the CEOs explained how things are and what would need to happen in order to avoid it.
Two months prior they layed everyone off (including themselves) which is double the legally required minimum period.
In the end we closed down the office together and parted ways.
Most people had offers lined up and at least one colleague of mine ended up with a former customer. The CEO "advertised" him during the final call with the customer.
Layoffs (or re-orgs for that matter) are never easy.
it took 9 months for them to start.. by the time they did moral was so low they could not hire for new positions or replace needed skilled labor. the sites name was mud state wide. (Western Australia).
I never want to go through that experience again. I got out after 8 month by asking for voluntary redundancy.
Their detailed worker guide makes this clearer: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/Layoff/pdfs/Worke...
For example, is each remote worker considered to be working at a different "plant" (their home)? If so, it seems like the WARN act could never be triggered for remote workers. So a loophole is that fully remote workers don't get WARN protections. That seems to clearly violate the intent of the law, which is that reasonably-large businesses should give advance warning of layoffs.
Or, are all the remote workers collectively considered to be working at one "remote plant"? In that case, WARN would be triggered if a company of, say, 20k people lays off as few as 3 remote workers in each state. That seems silly also.
What about hybrid workers, where 1000 people "report to" or are "based at" one office, but nobody ever actually shows up (or maybe they do, but only for team-building exercises twice a year)? Are those workers truly "working at" that office site (and thus covered by WARN), or are they working at 1000 independent sites (and thus not covered)?
This doesn't seem to apply to selectively letting ~250 people go globally; I saw no mention of a specific US office of this size being shuttered.
Companies have many ways they obfuscate or hide layoffs of older workers though, there is very little legal protection as long as the company isn't so stupid and brazen as IBM (i.e. leaves a trail of evidence in emails).
But for today, I think I will stick with the short answer, which points in the same direction, but is smaller in scope. I think it can be most clearly expressed in two parts:
First, we need to work on reducing the toxic levels of deceit and secrecy in our corporate culture. Hide everyone's salary, hide the metrics we're evaluated on, hide how poorly the company is doing—all of this is designed to make things either more convenient or more profitable for the executives and shareholders, at the expense of the workers, and at the expense of basic honesty. I'm not saying everyone needs to be 100% open about everything all the time; that's fairly obviously too extreme. But the company itself (and, by extension, its executives and other core officials) needs to be more transparent with its workers, especially for as long as it is effectively their sole source of income.
Second (and very much related), we need to find ways to break the mindset that the stock price is all. An awful lot of the deceit and secrecy—and, in fact, many of the other detrimental behaviors of companies and their executives—stem from the fact that the people at the top are obsessed with making sure the share price keeps growing. I think the way the stock price is treated by execs—and the stock/option-heavy compensation packages they often get—were probably based in something helpful and rational to start with (operating under the assumption that a higher stock price means a healthier company), but to the extent that that's true, it's fallen victim to Goodhart's Law ("any measure that becomes a target ceases to be a good measure").
How do we do these things? Haven't a clue, honestly. Our system is majorly messed up at every level right now, and chock full of feedback loops, so nearly anywhere you try to start will be resisted strongly without first improving things somewhere else...but conversely, any place you can make a difference will start to make it a little easier to improve things elsewhere.
The sudden lay off could hint that there is a deeper and more complex problem going on. They invested in tools that must be integrated in a their engine as soon as possible to recover this money from movie makers. So they increased their workforce, but their technical debt would cause a large resistance, making much of the workforce ineffective. They just realized it.
And the deeper problem is that transforming these tools into an appealing work flow that brings clients is a very hard problem that isn't too technical, but more like a "way" in the philosophical/psychological fields.
Companies are pivoting quickly at this point with the shifting tides and contagion happens fast.
This is par for the course. Athletes won't ever say 'I am moving to a new team' a month before a deal is inked. Employees won't go to their manager and say 'I am thinking of leaving in about a month, not sure yet tho'...they give the 2 week notice and peace out.
This is all extremely strategic, anyone who thinks the average exec really gives a damn needs to wake up. There are certainly exceptions, I have yet to see it.
| This is all extremely strategic
If the strategy is to show your business partners that you are unreliable
This isn't a statement of how good or bad of a leader Riccitiello is. Sorry, but "we're thinking about maybe, possibly doing some layoffs if whatever" is a really bad way to run a company. The answer is, and always should be, "No layoffs" until the decision is made to do layoffs, and then you do it as fast as the law allows to very quickly clear uncertainty. Layoffs suck, but telling everyone, "hey, I'm thinking we might do a round of layoffs next week" is a great way to make the damage far worse.
If CEOs believe his words and push forward accordingly, but the actual open market and business environment signal the opposite, what do you do? If you believe the market and business environment, start cost cutting measures and implement austerity protocols, the community vilifies you. If you continue business as usual, but market demand tanks, costs skyrocket, and product accumulates on shelves and loading docks, you'll go out of business.
[citation needed]
I prefer honest and open employers who could be upfront with me when things are going bad, one way or another.
I haven't seen it myself, really, and post-layoff date your best employees may already be looking anyway (especially in a layoff as the company folds vs a "rightsizing layoff").
I see this tossed around and I question it. The people that will leave are the people with who have good intuition about what is going to go down. In other words, the people who are best able to see through corporate politics.
It's not a given that the "best performers" or "top engineers" have a good eye for "corporate political BS". It's not a given they'll see what is going down and run for the exits. Being a "top performer" in some subject matter they are paid for doesn't imply they are "top performers" in playing the game.
It is just as likely that "the dead wood" have an "A game" with corporate politics and they run for the door instead.
I know plenty of extremely good engineers who would not run for the doors in such a situation.
I can see mess of certain companies and their bullshit but I was wrong thinking that they would collapse as they still are limping and alive. Granted it is during good times and have to wait to see during such bad times.
Most people continue doing what they were doing the day before unless pushed.
The citation you're looking for is anyone who's experienced early warning of unspecified lay-offs yet to come, and what that's like.
The key is to listen to the case the CEO makes. "There are no layoffs coming, I promise" is a signal that layoffs are coming.
"There are no layoffs coming. We are growing X% YOY and hiring pace of Y% has not slowed. Yada yada yada." is a signal that it's true.
> "I'm not the messiah!"
> "Only the true messiah would deny his divinity."
> "Well what chance does that give me?! Alright, I am the messiah!"
If the CEO says layoffs are coming, people freak out. So the CEO says no layoffs are coming, so we immediately assume that layoffs are coming.