[HN Gopher] Arm to drop up to 15 percent of staff, about 1k people ___________________________________________________________________ Arm to drop up to 15 percent of staff, about 1k people Author : analyst_9 Score : 215 points Date : 2022-03-15 13:21 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.theregister.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.theregister.com) | swamp40 wrote: | You always see 10-15% cuts leading up to an IPO. Investors love | it for some reason. It wouldn't surprise me if they intentionally | overhired in anticipation of this. It's mostly not the technical | talent. | belval wrote: | > Investors love it for some reason. | | "Some reason" is a reduction of operating expenses which boost | profit margins. From an investor perspective it makes sense, | ARM is an established brand that has limited headroom to grow, | you can't expect hyper growth from them so they need to make a | case that the ROI is worth it, especially now that a buyout is | off the table. | marcosdumay wrote: | > "Some reason" is a reduction of operating expenses which | boost profit margins. | | Well, that "profit" comes at the expensive of some difficult | to measure forms of capital. It is very likely a net-negative | for the company, but it does look good on the books. | avrionov wrote: | I don't think that we always see 10-15% cuts before IPOs. Most | companies continue to hire after successful IPO. | drexlspivey wrote: | They overhired because it was part of the deal to sell to | softbank | | > As part of SoftBank's deal to acquire Arm for PS24bn in 2016, | the UK Takeover Panel stipulated that it would have to double | its UK headcount over a five-year period, which stood at 1,600 | at the time. The requirement to do so expired last year. | Traster wrote: | To be honest, Arm doubled head count of the last 5 years, and | really haven't delivered. So it wouldn't be surprising to me that | their costs are way too high compared to comparable companies. | Having said that successfully getting back down to the correct | head count is probably impossible. You just can't figure out who | is essential, and you can't re-assure the people you want to | stay, so the people who can leave, do leave, and you're left with | the people you wanted to get rid of, but know you can't get rid | of them because they're the only ones you have left. Then the | good people who didn't leave take a look around and realize | they're no longer working with the smart people they thought they | were working with and start looking to leave too. And it's easier | for them to leave because they've suddenly got a load of contacts | at competitor companies. | ProAm wrote: | This is just pre-IPO behavior for the road show. They're going to | make the books look good for a fiscal year | smk_ wrote: | While speaking from limited expertise, it is my general | understanding these layoffs are a vital part in keeping a company | lean and reducing bloat. Over time, in any company, some roles | will be made redundant and is the reason for these occasional | layoffs. If I was an investor, I would see this as a good sign of | vision and a clear direction. | | They say so themselves: > "To stay competitive, we need to remove | duplication of work now that we are one Arm; stop work that is no | longer critical to our future success; and think about how we get | work done." | phendrenad2 wrote: | Exactly. When faced with a slowdown in demand you can either be | IBM and cut aggressively, or you can be DEC and keep people | employed working on inane doomed projects until the company | falls flat. | michelb wrote: | About the same amount that would have had to leave if the | takeover went through? | 999900000999 wrote: | Any chance of seeing these talented folks start new Chip design | shops. | | The person who can create a fab for less than a few million, | while offering competing performance will be very rich. | | Every bigger country will want some capacity to build chips. | phendrenad2 wrote: | Everything competitive is locked up in patents, but maybe with | the chip shortage there's room for more competition for | existing chips. Question is: can they get seed funding? | 999900000999 wrote: | https://www.wired.com/story/22-year-old-builds-chips- | parents... | | It's possible to build something with next to no money, and I | can't imagine it impractical to see some senior engineers | gathering together and making a good funding pitch | armheadcount wrote: | https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/10/11/arm-racing... | | I wonder if it's related to this? | acomjean wrote: | Kinda Galling when Arm walked away with over 1.25 billion dollars | after the Nvidia deal collapsed. that pays a lot of salaries. | | https://www.theregister.com/2022/02/08/arm_cancels_sale_to_n... | | "Under the terms and conditions agreed by the companies, SoftBank | Group will retain the fee of $1.25bn paid by Nvidia (this will be | recorded as a profit in its fourth quarter) and Nvidia will keep | hold of its 20-year Arm licence." | PeterisP wrote: | Well, Arm did _not_ walk away with that fee, Softbank did - | that money was never going to enter the company even if the | deal went through. | acomjean wrote: | Good point. Though if I own an asset that made me over a | billion dollars for basically doing nothing, I might consider | reinvesting at least some of it... | twblalock wrote: | Softbank doesn't want to invest in ARM. That's why they are | trying to sell it. | marricks wrote: | There's always a lot of disconnect between folks talking | about how the world _should_ work and how it _does_ work. | Seldom does switching between those modes leading to | productive conversations. | hackernewds wrote: | Great outcome for SoftBank | lbarrow wrote: | The quoted section says that _SoftBank_ will retain the fee, | not ARM? | socialdemocrat wrote: | Idiotic strategy which is about as smart as pissing in your pants | to stay warm. | | Big firings like this create bad blood, undermines loyalty to | company and get many talented people to look at alternative | companies to work. | | A talented organization takes time to build up but is relatively | quick to tear down. Skill in this industry is not exactly easy to | get hold of. Talent which leaves may prove very hard to get back. | blippage wrote: | I think Jordan Peterson had a comment about that. You get rid | of people you think are rubbish, but then the top people begin | to wonder if they're next. So they leave, because they have | options, whilst the whole company slowly slides into | mediocrity. | | It's not like Arm are facing long-term financial difficulties, | their market share is presumably as good as ever, so getting | rid of staff seems a bad idea. | KerrAvon wrote: | PaulKeeble wrote: | I have seen three redundancy rounds at different companies. | | The first resulted in every engineer in the team taking other | jobs within weeks of notice. Quite a few were hired back at | 3x their wage as a contractors as the projects while the | talent found better pay and conditions and never returned. | The company ended up paying more for its least influential | engineers but without them it would have been in real | trouble. | | The second the mere threat caused 10% of the engineers to | leave within weeks. Some stuck out the redundencies but | clearly management had no clue who the talent was and ended | up getting rid of some pretty important people. So the rest | left gradually over the next year. The brain drain to | competitors was very real, 15 years later they have not | recovered and I receive regular calls to do contracts for | them to bring some software engineering experience even a | decade later, its a bit embarrassing really. | | The third ended up getting rid of all the people who run a | critical system in one of the UK's largest banks. I saw only | the aftermath. All the software guys are long gone and its | just full of system operators migrating binaries to more | modern hardware, many of those systems are completely | unmaintained now and have no team and no one knows where the | code is stored, if it is still there. When the bugs started | rolling in and management couldn't find a place to get them | fixed they started hiring to replace the talent they had made | redundent but all of them left within a week because the job | was clearly impossible without source code which the company | had lost. | | I haven't yet seen a redundancy round result in anything but | the almost complete exodus of talent and the gutting of a | companies prior capability. I stuck around for one of them | but I wouldn't do so again because the aftermath was horrible | and all the people who made it interesting had left or were | leaving. Everytime its been abundantly clear that who goes is | mostly random, its not based on anything to do with | importance to the company and the people that make the place | tick know this. | staticman2 wrote: | That's an interesting counter argument to Jack Welchs' "Fire | 10% of the company for the sake of firing 10% of the company" | management philosophy. | bobthepanda wrote: | Jack Welch started his tenure in 1981. You can't | sustainably do that for 40+ years. | nojito wrote: | It doesn't matter how talented your organization is if you | can't keep your finances in check. | ggreg84 wrote: | Their goal - and only option - is to sell the company for as | much $$$ as possible, and this strategy helps them towards | their goal. | | This is the simplest and most effective way to make Arm books | look good, which is what regulators all around the world - | including the UK - have decided is what's best for the world. | | So this is not idiotic, this is effective, and is finance 101. | | For Arm's long term success this is a very stupid decision. But | that's not what any of the parties involved need or care about. | What they care about is $$$ right now. | | I won't be buying and holding Arm stock, particularly not as a | long term investment, cause it looks like its going to be a | poor one. | robert_foss wrote: | Pumping perceived share owner value is only in the interest | of the owner of ARM, Softbank. This is the kind of pump and | dump scheme that American investors are famous for. | | If indeed ARM needed to cut down on people, having a hiring | freeze is the way to go. | bogomipz wrote: | From the article: | | >"Arm China, meanwhile, is contemplating a float of its own. The | rogue Arm outpost, which is led by CEO Allen Wu and majority | owned by Chinese entities, has become something of a problem for | Arm because Wu was fired but has managed to retain his position." | | Is this not a huge meatball that ARM has hanging out here? | Further from a link in the linked article[1][2] | | >"Following the investigation of Wu by Arm and Hopu, the Arm | China board voted 7-1 to dismiss Wu. Given Wu's refusal to vacate | his role, Arm is growing anxious over the security of Arm China's | intellectual property, assets and finances, according to the | people with knowledge of the matter." | | How would any investor ever feel confident in investing in ARM | unless this is resolved? Even if it is resolved what are the | assurances that the IP is actually safe? This sounds like a | debacle. Is this something that happened on Softbank's watch? | | [1] https://www.scmp.com/tech/big-tech/article/3168443/arm- | china... | | [2] https://www.scmp.com/tech/big- | tech/article/3089901/softbank-... | Gareth321 wrote: | >Is this not a huge meatball that ARM has hanging out here? | Further from a link in the linked article | | Yes, but mostly no. Most of ARM's market cap is tied up in IP; | much of which is publicly available knowledge anyway. Wu stole | said IP, but he has very few markets in which he's legally | allowed to sell. It would be like someone setting up another | Disney in China. Okay, so you can sell Mickey Mouse branded | clothing in China, but you're definitely not going to be able | to sell in any modern market. | | ARM got off light. Millions of Western businesses have been | destroyed this way. | | It _should_ be a stark warning for companies setting up shop in | China: they _will_ steal your technology, your IP, your | facilities and assets, your trade secrets, your branding and | trademarks, and all your equity. The government permits and | encourages this. It 's only a matter of time. | amelius wrote: | > "To stay competitive, we need to remove duplication of work now | that we are one Arm; stop work that is no longer critical to our | future success; and think about how we get work done." | | In other words: we have no clue how to make use of a large force | of capable workers. | justsaying12 wrote: | Arm has been hemmoraghing talent to direct competitors for the | last year. Do a search on GraphCore, SiFive, Imagination | Technologies etc. | | Not sure what went wrong, but people who have a clue have been | bailing out left and right. | | Reminds me of Amazon also - Something similar happening at AWS. | When Bezos left, lot of people streaming out the door. | | Steady talent exodus, and they are not the dumb people leaving. | The great ones leave instantly. The trapped or mediocre (can't | leave...for some reason), too lazy, unmotivated etc stay and pay | compounding interest and poison the company. | ggreg84 wrote: | What went wrong is that people learned how much NVIDIA pays, | figured out they were significantly underpayed, Arm is not a | very profitable business so couldn't compete, and the moment it | started looking like the NVIDIA deal was not going to fly, top | talent started jumping ship. | pyb wrote: | It may well be that ARM could pay better if they wanted to. | But the culture in Cambridge, and the UK, has been to pay | engineers pretty poorly. So perhaps they don't yet understand | that they need to. Also, salary inversion within the company | would be a huge problem. | phendrenad2 wrote: | It's also easier to attract talent from London to SV than | it is to attract talent from SV to London. | gifnamething wrote: | Arm is about 90 minutes away from London | hiptobecubic wrote: | On a typical day, SV is farther than that from SF. | pertymcpert wrote: | Not even that. A 10 minute taxi to the station and a ~50 | min train to KGX. | PaulKeeble wrote: | The UK seriously underpays software engineers, if US | companies want to tap into the talent pool its relatively | easy to do so especially with remote work. The UK has a | serious lack of management talent and a trickle up economy | that is damaging everything and the economic situation is | not great. Its primed for a big brain drain. | robert_foss wrote: | Graphcore is just in the AI space, and Imagination is a company | that ARM outcompeted to the extent that they barely exist | anymore. | | SiFive is a real competitor, but they are much smaller and | offer only a fraction of the IP portfolio of ARM. | mataug wrote: | > Reminds me of Amazon also - Something similar happening at | AWS. When Bezos left, lot of people streaming out the door. | | People aren't leaving Amazon by following Bezos, people are | leaving because of their terrible working conditions[0] and bad | policies, including employees in corporate offices. | | [0]: https://archive.ph/M2p1Z | discreteevent wrote: | > The great ones leave instantly | | Some of the talented ones leave instantly and maybe some of the | great ones. But some really great ones stay because they are | personally committed to the work and couldn't care less about | their linked in or who's running the company. How much change | was there at Bell Labs but the likes of Dennis Ritchie never | left. | robocat wrote: | I agree, talent doesn't always care about money: Oxide has | been able to get some people to work there for a significant | pay cut. Oxide computer is a mixed hardware/software play and | they currently pay a flat $180k wherever you live. | | Talked about in this podcast: | https://soundcloud.com/user-760920229/why-your-servers- | suck-... | | And an older article: | https://oxide.computer/blog/compensation-as-a-reflection- | of-... | Traster wrote: | Ok, so to be clear, paying 2-3 times what the average ARM | employee in the UK is earning... | dclaw wrote: | Thanks IPO | rob74 wrote: | > _The planet is not exactly flush with such folk at present, and | much of Arm 's appeal to investors lies in its deep technical | expertise. It is therefore likely that most of the redundancies | will be staff not directly involved in Arm's core activities._ | | This "cost-cutting exercise" (lovely euphemism) may not directly | target technical people, but for some of them it may be a wake-up | call nevertheless: "if they start lay-offs now, who says this | will be the last round? And who says that I won't be next?". So | they start looking around for alternatives, which I hear are | plentiful at the moment, and hey presto, you got rid of the | people you didn't actually want to get rid of... | m463 wrote: | There's also culture death during layoffs. People get nervous, | start focusing on their own tasks and don't altruistically help | others. | ethbr0 wrote: | Counter-take: There's also cultural improvement during | layoffs, when you no longer have to interface with someone | who doesn't want to do their job and/or is bad at it. | mschuster91 wrote: | The "bad" people will hold on as long as they can - | partially because they won't have it as easy to find a new | job, partially because they gamble on enough "high | performers" leaving that they cannot be fired because | otherwise everything would collapse. | gedy wrote: | That should really be taken care of as it comes up in a | case by case basis, not mass layoff. | ethbr0 wrote: | I'm not pro-stack ranking, but I also can't argue that | sweeping layoffs don't also have _some_ benefits. | caoilte wrote: | You don't need to stack rank to ease people out who | aren't happy doing their job. | herval wrote: | Can you cite a couple of examples where it _did_ improve | things? | time_to_smile wrote: | Have you actually been at a company that has had massive | layoffs? | | I've been a few times and I recall losing lots of friends | and valuable team members. Even management typically | doesn't spread the ridiculous myth that they're laying off | people "who doesn't want to do their job and/or is bad at | it". | | Layoffs are heart-breaking and I can't earnestly believe | that someone who has been through them would have this | "counter-take". | Terry_Roll wrote: | Worked at the largest stock market listed supermarket in | the 90's which is one of the largest employers in the UK | after the NHS. They banned all but essential recruitment | and cut back on everything like payrises, capital | replacements to maximise profits because they didnt know | how the Socialist Labour Govt was going to be with | taxation. As it happened the Govt introduced working tax | credits so a wage top up for the lowest paid, paid for by | higher earning workers and it meant these companies could | keep wages suppressed so they could build up a war chest | and expand overseas which ended disastrously in the US. | | Theres more than one way to skin a cat as they say, so | layoffs can be seen in a few different lights. | | Edit. Just because a company is listed on the stock | market, like govt's doesnt mean they are not fronts for | criminal activity! | clavoie wrote: | While I hear what you're saying, I doubt that's often the | case. Either you have a company who either tolerated bad | employees for a long time or just figured out they were bad | at their job. | | Neither points to a very healthy culture to start with. | ravitation wrote: | I've been through numerous rounds of layoffs, both of | entire teams and of select individuals or roles, and it has | never had a net positive effect on culture. | | Large-scale layoffs very rarely (i.e. never) simply cut | people that are "bad at [their jobs]." | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: | It seems to depend on the company, but based on my | observations the people who are first to go seem to | correlate strongly with people, who management does not | like. The remaining layoffs are a weird function of | people, who know what they are doing and can't ingratiate | themselves. | pmontra wrote: | In my personal experience the first to go are the non | management highest paid employees, the degree of | competence doesn't matter. The really good ones go before | the layoffs. The next layer of skilled employees leaves | between the first and the second wave of layoffs. | Eventually you get a company of drones with some | management on top of them. Possibly a lot of management | because sometimes they contract the same very people they | laid out because they need the expertise but they want to | transform capex to opex. | 1270018080 wrote: | I have never, and probably will never, see a culture | improve after layoffs. | pjbeam wrote: | Which then in turn puts pressure on the spiral of talent loss | in the departments management wasn't targeting. | Yoric wrote: | Yep. I've been exactly there ~15 months ago (not at Arm, but in | another fairly big tech company). I haven't checked the actual | numbers but it is my understanding by some former colleagues | that the number of tech people who decided to leave was | comparable to the number of people who were laid off. | hgomersall wrote: | I've heard it suggested that the best way to stimulate a bunch | of startups is to collapse a big tech firm. I know of at least | two clusters that can be traced back to big companies going | under. | petercooper wrote: | Or even half an industry. I don't think it's a coincidence a | lot of significant technical developments or companies came | out of the post dot-com "fallow" period of 2002-2006 (like | the spread of Ajax, Rails, Django, .NET and Mono, Skype, | WordPress, much of Web 2.0's innovation with Flickr, Twitter, | and Facebook all founded in this period, AWS). | mikepurvis wrote: | The Toronto-Waterloo tech corridor can be pretty heavily tied | back to the slow implosion of RIM/BlackBerry over the course | of the early 2010s. Even the companies that predate those | events still benefited a lot from the glut of qualified | personnel coming available, and there are others which had | been funded or bootstrapped by early RIM employees. | bregma wrote: | Where I work at BlackBerry it seems to be all ex-Nortel | people. So it goes. | navaati wrote: | Sun | mattkevan wrote: | Pretty sure that most of Silicon Valley, including Intel, was | founded by people exiting Fairchild Semiconductor when things | got rough there in the '70s. | | https://computerhistory.org/blog/fairchild-and-the- | fairchild... | Clubber wrote: | I agree. To add, usually when this happens seemingly at random, | it's to make the company look more attractive for a sale, in my | experience. | redleader9345 wrote: | I've seen companies go on hiring sprees just prior to being | acquired, which I don't fully understand. I guess the company | tries to puff itself up to fetch a larger asking price? | Guessing base cost factors in to sale price. | | It's shitty, cuz their playing with people's lives. As soon | as the acquiring company takes over, their like "what's with | all these unnecessary people?" | guiriduro wrote: | Maybe it is to create the 'inefficiencies' which the merger | can then 'synergize' away, so that the acquiring execs can | get bigger bonuses. Because I've yet to see one instance | where real (non-stupid/contrived) synergies actually | occurred as foreseen, but plenty of cynical M&A. Also | plenty of absolutely atrocious dysynergies in corp history | of course. | noir_lord wrote: | Given the outcry after the last attempt at a sale and the | fact that nVidia got blocked (a US company) who would risk | buying arm at the moment given that multiple competition | watchdogs are currently paying attention. | rossdavidh wrote: | You could sell to private capital, or a company not | currently in the semi industry that wanted to enter. | | [edit] Oh it says it right in the article: "SoftBank, Arm's | owner, responded to that setback with a plan to float the | chip design firm by March 2023." | hnlmorg wrote: | Would either of those things genuinely put other companies | off? If I were looking to expand into that market then it | wouldn't put me off. They're manageable hurdles to | purchasing rather than reasons that buying ARM would be bad | business. | cinntaile wrote: | They're preparing to IPO in 2023. It's a shame the Nvidia | sale didn't go through, now they'll likely die a slow death | because they don't have enough R&D resources to compete | with the big boys who are just going to design their own | CPUs instead of buying the design. | Kon-Peki wrote: | That's an interesting idea. | | The Apple M1 lineup, for example. The M1 standard, pro, | max, and ultra are not differentiated by their ARM cores | other than the quantity of them. It's really the GPU | cores and media encoding components. And that Neural | Engine thing is really important for many apps and OS | features. At what point do the general purpose CPU cores | on a modern chip become minor players that have very | little impact on overall chip performance? I don't think | we're there yet, but it certainly _could_ happen. | | EDIT - I'm saying M1 vs M1 Pro vs M1 Max vs M1 Ultra. | _Not_ M1 vs Intel i7 | yywwbbn wrote: | That not really true though. M1 had considerable better | single core performance at the time of release than | anything else with a comparable TDP. And the Neural | Engine is only useful is fairly narrow use cases. | mkr-hn wrote: | I wonder if there were similar conversations about math | coprocessors when they joined the CPU. What did people | say about increasing specialization of cores then? The | closest recent analogue is GPUs joining the CPU on mobile | devices, but it was only recently that those weren't | complete garbage. | kcb wrote: | Apples ARM cores have been significantly ahead of off the | shelf ARM designs for years now. | swamp40 wrote: | Small ARM Cortex's have taken over the microcontroller | market. Billions made each year from every large | microcontroller manufacturer. They aren't going anywhere. | It's hard to believe ARM wouldn't make enough from | licensing fees and from each one sold to make an easy | profit. Maybe the license doesn't account for individual | sales, IDK? | | New secure ARM Cortex's are launching everywhere too, so | they are very much alive and well, for the next 20 years | minimum. | fundmondawyaya wrote: | Small RV32/64 cores could supplant them. | | For example, GigaDevices makes an STM32F1 clone which | comes in two flavors with the same peripheral memory map: | ARM Cortex-M3, or RV32IMAC. | swamp40 wrote: | Lots of things _could_ supplant them, but the base is too | large now and it has grown to cover the entire ecosystem. | | They spent the last 10 years beating out PICs, 8051s, | etc. Because they were BETTER. | | And now a million engineers now how to use them, and the | tooling from 1000+ companies is all in place to support | them. | | They aren't going anywhere. | chmod600 wrote: | "They aren't going anywhere." | | That seems to be said of a lot of things that do end up | disappearing. Hard to tell whether there are real roots | in the market or if it's going to evaporate like so many | other things. | fundmondawyaya wrote: | I dunno if Cortex-M chips will be better for long, | though. Some of the RISC-V specifications like interrupt | controllers need a bit more time, but they have very good | support in mainline compilers like the GNU toolchain. | | My experience writing C for RISC-V MCUs is about the same | as doing so for Cortex-M platforms. They're a bit low- | volume/expensive atm, but the core is very appealing to | chip makers because it has solid software support and no | royalties. | | I also wouldn't write ARM off, though. Their 'coming- | soon' MCU neural accelerators could open a lot of doors | if it works well on a low power budget. | humanwhosits wrote: | Bill Of Materials. | | ARM will have to lower prices, as if you can save even | just 1 cent per-device by using RISC-V in your | microcontroller.. | ksec wrote: | >compete with the big boys | | Which big boys are designing their own CPU instead of | buying from ARM? Apart from Apple and arguably Qualcomm | with Nuvia? | mschuster91 wrote: | The "big boys" you mentioned are all holders of ARM | Architectural Licenses - there are only 15 of them in | total and they likely pay a _shitload_ of money for the | privilege [1]. | | And they will need to hold on to the ARM architecture and | thus the license payments for quite the time... I bet | Apple _could_ go and develop a completely new ISA from | scratch, but that would mean a third infrastructure | switch in two decades on the PC and the first one on | everything mobile - a lot of work for everyone involved | with no real benefit, and especially after they spent | multiple billions on getting their ARM stuff to the | performance (in compute power and power efficiency) point | they need. | | Even the "biggest boys" aka nation states fail at making | decent alternatives to the x86/64 and ARM duopoly - the | Russian Elbrus and Indian SHAKTI CPUs are utter exotics | and Chinese Loongson are a plain fork of MIPS (and again, | completely exotic). | | [1]: https://www.anandtech.com/show/7112/the-arm-diaries- | part-1-h... | mattkevan wrote: | That's happening where I work. | | There was a shock round of layoffs a few months ago, triggering | a mass exodus. They've now had to start hiring again to make up | numbers. | | The amount of team disruption, lost domain knowledge and hiring | expenses, especially as new people will want to be paid more, | must have cost the business far more than they saved from the | layoffs. | | So short sighted. | ThrowawayIP wrote: | I'm sure your CEO got their bonus though, if not a premium on | the bonus because they lead the company through such hard | times. | gadders wrote: | https://steveblank.com/2009/12/21/the-elves-leave-middle-ear... | Gareth321 wrote: | I finally have a use for my MBA. The theory on this one is not | good. You're right: people will leave of their own volition. | Problem is, it's usually the people with the highest | marketability. In laymen's terms, the most skilled and | productive employees. In any given organisation you'll find 20% | doing 80% of the heavy lifting. Losing half of the most | productive employees results in a real world 40% reduction in | output. Of course, much of this output is intangible and easy | to hide, so investors don't see the damage for years. Soon | enough, lack of productivity bites cash flows, and another | round of layoffs is announced. Wouldn't you know it, the most | productive leave this time too. | andrewjf wrote: | As far as I can tell, this kind of thinking (the best people | leave first and you're stuck with the lowest performers) _is_ | accepted common knowledge. | | So what's the thought process that goes into triggering the | good people to leave? Is there just no other option? | SuoDuanDao wrote: | I suspect that past a certain scale, some good people | leaving is so unavoidable it becomes necessary to make | everyone replaceable. That tends to hobble the top | performers the most, turnover justifies shifting the | culture more in that direction, etc. | dan-robertson wrote: | I don't really buy this argument. Another thing one sees | is companies deciding that a certain level of | 'unregretted attrition' is good and then effecting | policies that end up raising attrition in general and of | course it disproportionately rises for the more | productive marketable employees. So maybe those companies | don't realise what they're doing or they don't know who | is important to keep or they think the attrition is worth | it. I don't think one can merely consider it unavoidable | when companies actively increase it. | humanwhosits wrote: | "If they can't afford those other people, I'm probably not | getting paid enough to stay" | caoilte wrote: | The thinking is, Good people leave anyway. Everybody is | replaceable. | 01100011 wrote: | A couple of coworkers with experience in the defense industry | related a story about a company, Cubic I think, which started | offering buyouts in order to reduce headcount and boost | profits. The best engineers took the offer because they could | just get another job somewhere else. The worst employees | stayed behind and proceeded to do the same buyout approach | next time the company needed to save money. It was a natural | selection feedback loop that took the company's engineering | talent into the gutter. | mprovost wrote: | Bruce Webster named this the "Dead Sea Effect". [0] Imagine | your talent evaporating, leaving an increasingly salty | residue. | | [0] http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis- | the-d... | pfortuny wrote: | It is also a great way to make technical people do non- | technical work and end up wasting a ton of time. | | Overall, cost-cutting in the short term. Just that. | vishnugupta wrote: | > you got rid of the people you didn't actually want to get rid | of | | And to add salt to the wound you will end up retaining those | who are good at surviving such layoffs by doing some optical | work. It's the worst of all the worlds. | | It should also be pointed out that people are not plug-and-play | parts of a machinery. They carry domain knowledge, context | (Chesterton's fence), intra-company network they have | painstakingly built and such intangible value. Besides, layoff | doesn't mean the _work_ disappears. It gets distributed, often | unevenly, among existing workforce. I 've seen it first hand | and the aftereffects are just terrible. | Johnny555 wrote: | _So they start looking around for alternatives, which I hear | are plentiful at the moment_ | | On the other hand, if you think the layoffs are due to an | impending economic downturn, you could end up moving to a new | job and being the new guy, so if they need to make cuts, you're | first to go. | | I was working for a small (~500 people) but well established | startup around the time of the original dot-com bust. I have | some friends that tried the same thing -- saw the writing on | the wall and tried hopping to a bigger more established company | for job protection, but they were the first to lose jobs when | layoffs hit the industry. We had relatively layoffs in some | areas of the company, but not in the core engineering team. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | Just to be slightly contrarian, I've also seen in tech | companies that layoffs are often the only way to get rid of | "mediocre-ly poor" but not egregiously bad performers. | | That is, I've worked with people that didn't completely suck, | but to quote Office Space, they always did the absolute bare | minimum. Few companies have the Netflix mindset of letting | people go with a large severance if they aren't top performers, | so these mediocre folks can just be allowed to fester. | | TBH, I've been _glad_ as an engineer to see the company | (belatedly) handle these sub-par performers, and to these folks | benefit they get a fair severance and can usually find other | jobs quickly. | | Of course not all layoffs are like this, and often times | layoffs at a large company are done "unevenly" as others have | pointed out, but I have been in a company before where layoffs | allowed the company to focus and perform better. | kradeelav wrote: | I understand the annoyance at underperformers (I really do), | but that feels a little, mm, unkind on some level. Some | people just want a steady paycheck without having to be a | rockstar, and I can't blame them for that. | hiptobecubic wrote: | There's a difference between "I don't want to be a | rockstar" and "I am doing the bare minimum to make it not | worth it to fire me." I think the post is talking about the | latter. | dan-robertson wrote: | How does "I'm doing the bare minimum to make it not worth | it to fire me" compare to "I'm being paid a larger | proportion for the value I create" for you? To clarify, | the former happens by decreasing output and the latter by | getting paid more for existing output and obviously can | be harder to achieve in practice. In both cases the | company could be getting (or feeling they're getting) | lower value for money from the worker. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | I certainly don't blame them, but at the same time I rarely | feel bad for people that are laid off in a company in a | _growing_ industry if they are given a fair severance. Yes, | it can be challenging and disorienting to have to go find a | new job, but again, as others have noted, I have no doubt | that all these people will get snatched up quickly. | | I contrast that with people that are laid off in a | _shrinking_ industry, and I have a ton of sympathy for | those folks, because it 's basically musical chairs around | who gets to keep their jobs. Folks who are laid off in | shrinking industries often need to take a large, permanent | pay cut, or leave the workforce entirely. | Calamitous wrote: | Yep. As soon as the layoffs start (or even reliable rumors), | I'm polishing my resume. | tlogan wrote: | Large layoffs is always a politic game and in many cases very | smart people working of cool projects ended up being laid off. | | I was in one large corporation (not large anymore) which did | something like that. And sure, cafeteria was still full of | marketing and sales people even after layoffs. | toss1 wrote: | >> "To stay competitive, we need to remove duplication of work | now that we are one Arm; stop work that is no longer critical to | our future success; and think about how we get work done." | | Sounds good, but it is extremely likely a strong sign that the | executive suite does not know what they are doing. | | A company cannot achieve greatness by cost-cutting. | | This is especially so in these times where it is so hard to find | talent. Even if there are some redundancies, your key asset is an | existing talent pool that has already been recruited and is up to | speed on your products, technology, and internal processes. | Strategically redeploying them to greater effect is a sign of | knowledge & strength. Merely cutting and hacking is a sign of | either incompetence, or that they DGAF and are trying to | temporarily make the numbers look better for some near-term | result (e.g., the likely pending new China IPO mentioned in the | article), and leaving the resulting problems for their successors | to deal with. | | It is really rather obscene. | cultofmetatron wrote: | this is great, 1k people to now start working on riscV ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-03-15 23:01 UTC)