No one on my team has any information about this beyond the Satya email, so this is either a "no news is good news" situation (assuming you don't actually want to be laid off), or a poorly executed process. I'm hoping for the former for the sake of my team.
Except people care even less about your job experience since you're "leadership" now and are expected to toe the line no matter what.
Tl;DR = possessing insider info != insider trading
Generally speaking, with a layoff, they want all employees to hear it from official sources and not internal rumors.
What did the hints look like?
I am based in India. US folks would have seen different signs
I guess there are complexities with huge multinational companies, but that seems kind of designed to make people like your team worry.
My understanding is also that during mass layoffs big companiess can't just cut all low performers / juniors so this might be completely random but we just don't get to know that.
C-suite will get a raise from the stock price bump.
Congrats on our system.
These large companies are ultimately doing what the Fed wants them to do, no point blaming the c-suite for that?
eg. https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2022/10/12/does-the-f...
It's politically incorrect to say the Fed is trying to make x% people lose their jobs but that's basically what they're scheming for the past year or so...
There. Corrected.
https://mronline.org/2022/05/26/u-s-federal-reserve-says-its...
[0]: https://www.epi.org/blog/inflation-minimum-wages-and-profits...
The ACA just states that insurers can't refuse a customer who wants to purchase a plan just because they have a preexisting condition. It doesn't actually require that the plan cover treatment for said condition.
In many states - including wealthier deep blue states - the marketplace plan options are actually quite terrible.
Of course the countries with those laws have never created a company like MS in the first place, so..
>>people with health issues will be on their own
Maybe the US sorts this sheet out, really about time
You can close your eyes and cheer about profitability, but the bill is coming anyway.
What does this do to morale and retention?
It says "through the end of FY23 Q3". Microsoft's fiscal year ends at the end of June, so their "FY23 Q3" is the current quarter.
It feels like it would demoralize workers; everyone was already on eggshells leading up to such an announcement and it would suck to continue working while stepping on eggshells for a full year, wondering if tomorrow is your day.
I worked for place which did several mass layoffs. The way they did it was by emailing everyone at end of day Thursday explain that everyone needed to be in the office at 9am tomorrow. Then the next day they'd call people into rooms one by one and tell them they no longer have a job.
It sucks for two reasons, one because in the span of 24 hours you go from feeling secure to panicking about finding a job. And two because everyone who is still there knows that at any point the same thing could happen to them.
The places I've been where they've been up front have been much more pleasant in comparison. While people can feel stressed and demoralised they at least know where they stand and can keep their options open. Managers come across as honest and sympathetic to the situation instead of secretive which helps avoid rumours of impending mass layoffs every couple of months. Plus it also gives everyone a chance to say goodbye.
Big brain: I'm telegraphing that we'll be letting lots of people go so they will self-select and we won't have to fire as many. I imagine that someone could have this idea, but I doubt it benefits the company in practice.
Micro brain: 'If you have not received notice that are are affected, your are safe! Resume being 100% productive until you receive notice that you are fired at a later time. That is all.'
Having lived through 2001 dot-com bust, I can say that being the retained employee can be worse than being laid off.
If I was laid off tomorrow, though, it would be a relief and I could call it a day.
2 They probably want to. It creates clarity for employees after what other commenters here described as months-long rumours. The damage to morale would be greater if they do it in pieces.
2b It is also a better story for investors.
Wow, that way way, better than what we get by law in my EU country when you're laid off (just unemployment benefits). Looks like big tech in the US has loads of perks.
I am a EU citizen having lived in the US for almost a decade and I still can't overcome the stress of losing my job because of this.
Average US worker << Average EU worker < US Big Tech Worker
Though, it's not exactly a vacation, as you're expected to prove to the unemployment office you are actively looking for a job and interviewing and you're not allowed to leave the country during that period. I mean you can leave the country, nobody will stop you, but you'll not receive unemployment or healthcare coverage for the period you're out of the country.
You can make it a vacation if you're system savvy enough and know how to game the system and aren't risk averse.
He could have left that part out.
Which makes me think of two things; one, they want to get rid of very specific people, people who wouldn't quit on their own. And two, that they can't just reduce staff count without an announcement, because staff count is one of those metrics that shareholders use to determine whether they're staying, buying or selling stocks.
A quiet reduction of staff? They can't hire people anymore, this is bad, I should sell my stocks!
A round of layoffs? They're cutting costs, which will be good for profits, I should buy more! Or sell because I've lost confidence.
Honestly, the stock market and shareholders are not rational.
https://news.stanford.edu/2022/12/05/explains-recent-tech-la...
The announcement itself has an "if-by-whiskey" feel to it. On the one hand, they claim to be "aligning cost structure with revenue". On the other hand, they also claim to be investing in "strategic areas for our future". It tries to spin it in a way that appeals to both value and growth investors respectively.
Usually reductions in staff are well received by Wall Street because operating expenses should be reduced. I think there's a joke about a CEO saying "oh stocks down, time for layoffs!"
I hate it when head honchoes try and get cozy with you by signing off with their First Name only --way to take the name away from anyone else in the company with the same name. 99% of the people in a large company like that never met you and don't know you on a first-name basis.
Instead they present themselves as your friend. Even if you don't believe it, social norms dictate that in general you act like you do. Like Zizek says, "fuck you, you're a boss, act like it!". Then you're unsure of what's happening. Do they really feel bad? Maybe they're trying their best, maybe they really care about me personally.
It's same with all this corporate-speech that's been emerging recently. They're not your family, they're not your friends, and if it comes to it they will fist you so hard you'll be tasting their perfectly-manicured nails.
I think it's very important to always have this in mind and not to tie up your identity with your work. You are a line item on a spreadsheet somewhere to them, nothing more. If you start believing otherwise you are setting yourself up for mental health problems when your use runs out and they kick you to the kerb.
And while employees might give him a hard time for this, shareholders can definitely give him a harder time if they see a (potential) decline in dividend. So cutting cost to keep dividends steady with a decline in profitability and revenue is the easiest fight for him.
While it sucks, when working for a large tech company which is publicly traded like Microsoft antics like this should be no surprise to anyone.
What's the worst they can do? Fire him? He's worth somewhere between $300m-$800m according to Google. Even if he's "only" worth $100m. He'll never have to worry about providing/monthly expenses to cover rent/food. Can't say the same for employees. Obviously that's not his responsibility/concern. Just an interesting take.
What's harder? Getting squeezed by shareholders or being unable to afford your rent?
Let’s see how fast the stock tanks then :)
That's enough time for a new bachelor's degree.
5% headcount reduction is attainable just by freezing hiring and letting churn happen and performance management.
With nearly any company I've seen employees who can dodge performance but are a low performing employee. It drags down their team, and makes your high performers quit.
Layoffs like this might not even have front line managers input aside from, "who is critical to keeping the lights on in the company". All those things that have helped an employee avoid being PIP'ed out are gone.
The managers who I've talked to in these situations will almost always pick their high performing individuals regardless, because they know if they don't they'll be cut next due to poor performing team.
Remember, e.g., the Jack Ma era and his proclamations that we should all get into arts because tech will take care of the rest?
Is the current round of layoffs an admission that the "software will eat the world" scenario will not happen or an indication that it can be done with even fewer tech employees?
During growth, you make big plans and you invest in growth. You hire people to build new things.
Oh snap. Growth is gone.
You cancel your lofty plans and you stick with things that are working. Anyone who was hired for grand plan things is a burden and let go. Sure. Some under performers too, but I don’t think this current wave in the cycle is the end of software eating the world.
It is quite possible that these businesses are wrong about the future. They have been before. But as predicting the future is impossible, one has to make an educated guess and live with it.
Either statement is reading too much into it. It's a reaction to economic conditions and the state of the labor market.
This will never be good news, obviously, but please communicate the important facts clearly.
Anything else is basically a lie.
"Look, investors have low confidence in the market right now and all our competitors are doing it. I need to send a signal or the stock is going to keep going down and I wont get my full yearly bonus. In the end it's all about the quaterly share price. I know, it sucks, but let's not kid ourselves, we all knew that's the game we are playing here: go work for a small company if you want long term strategy. We might buy you when you are done innovating. You can always come back next year if it's a hiring market anyway."
There is no contract stating how much PTO you can take, its up to your manager, could be zero, could be four weeks, who knows. Could change when your manager changes.
Its an accounting trick to remove PTO from the accounting books and remove a paid benefit to employees.
IME, if the company does not let go of executives, they are just tagging along with their peer companies on the layoff train. If they do make cuts at the VP/SVP level then the company really does have margin/profitability issues.
You must be new here. I work for a blue chip Fortune 200 widely known for their binge-and-purge cycles. Management is never affected. They just reshuffle the cards.
I've been predicting another "purge" in 2Q, but I suspect we will lag the tech sector, so maybe it will be EOY.
What level?
Typical corporation structure I've seen is
CEO -> CEO -> SVP -> VP -> Director -> Managers
You're saying the managers at the bottom are generally safe? I feel like that's not typically true?
https://news.stanford.edu/2022/12/05/explains-recent-tech-la...
Moreover, none of the evidence was collected under the current economic environment, where a decade of cheap money and growth fantasies have fueled an unsustainable hiring frenzy.
I'm glad we agree
> But is that why they are laying people off? Of course not. Meta has plenty of money. These companies are all making money.
How does this follow any logic at all. He does not even dispute that overhiring took place. Should companies continue with a stupid hiring frenzy until they run out of money? This is the logical implication.
> They are doing it because other companies are doing it.
How is this explanation better than any other? This is such a strong claim and he offers ZERO evidence for it. And gross overgeneralizations like "oh, there are cases in which..." are argumental rubbish. This infuriates me because this is bad science and plainly opinionated.
1) Layoffs != Hiring frenzy. A company can slow or stop hiring but also not do layoffs. It's actually a common way to downsize softly.
2) Most of these companies are profitable. Running out of money isn't likely.
1) I really have no issues with layoff in Big Tech. They pay very very well and no parent who was let go can't feed his family all of a sudden. If you were even a semi-decent employee, you can find a job at another place quickly. So many places still look for people in spades.
There are as many good business reasons to contract your workforce, as there are bad ones. And it's likely you hired a lot of low-performers and quacks during peak hiring. Now is the time to do so without creating public outrage.
2) This implies that the reason for layoffs are exclusively linked to payrolls. And the guy in the interview suggest as much as well. I dispute this notion.
Rae Days were reviled and helped end the viability of Rae's party the Ontario NDP.
The thing is... I don't get it? Would people have rather had mass layoffs? Rae 100% did the right thing here IMO.
Satya Nadella: Microsoft's Products Will Soon Access Open AI Tools Like ChatGPT | WSJ - YouTube
This assumes AI taking people's jobs has anything to do with these layoffs. The press release mentions AI, but not in that context. I don't think these people are being laid off because MS is getting ChatGPT to write their code instead.
One of my cards was SO CLOSE, but he needed to galvanize some.
My rightmost column had Leadership, Accelerate, Innovative, and Challenge. Missing Galvanize.
https://news.stanford.edu/2022/12/05/explains-recent-tech-la...
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/16/microsoft-ceo-satya-nadella-...
