Comment by datadrivenangel
6 days ago
Humans are very sensitive to being ostracized, and modern layoffs in aggregate are at least partially (~20%) intended and communicated as being ways to get rid of 'low performers', so we know that even when we get laidoff simply due to not making a cut line on a spreadsheet we still think it may be due to our own performance and also that others may think that as well.
> modern layoffs in aggregate are at least partially (~20%) intended and communicated as being ways to get rid of 'low performers',
In my experience they're often used to get rid of high wage earners and people with benefits no longer offered by company. Those people then get replaced with new hires who get paid less and have fewer benefits.
vibe layoffs are bad practice due to fundamental attribution error (line managers don't necessarily have any idea who their low performers are even if they think they do) and ultimately expose the company to discrimination lawsuits if hr doesn't enforce a fair and consistent selection criteria
So what do you recommend instead, a dice roll?
I mean - you don't want to keep the unlucky people, right?
Why not? Same for hiring. People keep trying to impress order on a process that is ultimately, inherently chaotic, because of the reliance on disorderly human agents to carry it out.
Maybe if C-suite bros thought they might lose their golden geese to a coin flip, they'd think twice about instituting layoffs. Ironically, it would put a wall between "labor costs" (actual people with actual lives that are massively disrupted by job loss) and other costs, in terms of what can be excised from the balance sheet with an inconsiderate pen stroke.