Sounds quite familiar
https://www.businessinsider.com/meta-low-performers-cut-employee-reaction-mark-zuckerberg
3 replies (most recent on top)
At least meta is upfront about the purpose/intent. If DW wants head count at some target, I would prefer DW just make the cuts and get it over with.
Lol, Meta may have overhired during its growth phase and now finds that certain roles or skill sets no longer align with its priorities.
Layoffs are often motivated by financial reasons, such as improving profit margins, especially in the face of economic challenges or market shifts.
Performance metrics in large companies like Meta are often subjective. In a cost-cutting context, even capable employees might be classified as “low performers” due to restructuring or role redundancies.
Meta emphasizes hiring “the best” to attract top talent. Admitting to financial struggles or overstaffing could harm its employer brand. Tying layoffs to performance protects its image as a selective and high-performing workplace.
Who decides on the low performers? The related supervisors and managers. Where do we rank in the popularity contest? I have seen many low performers stick around and excuses made for them. I have also seen many intelligent and hard workers piped instead of these low output workers. You never know where you will land on the wheel. One worker worked his butt of a few years and got NI for this. Later he burned out and mailed in the last few years and got a good rating. He retired with a good rating at the end. It just doesn't make sense. It is bizzarro world up is down and black is white. It is opposite day ranking sometimes.