[sausagefeet]

> Cutting everyone's salary will dislodge your top performers who can get a better position even in poor market conditions.

Will it? Are your top performers only there because of the pay? And how do you even determine who your top performers are? I see this sort of logic frequently and I don't even know how to measure it, much less believe it.

[sovnwnt]

> Are your top performers only there because of the pay

In an ideal work environment, probably less so than other employees. But I think anyone who has their salary reduced is going to reevaluate their position, and those with more valuable skills are more likely to leave. The question is, what is more likely to cause a serious reevaluation, salary reductions or layoffs?

I think for most tech companies, a single round of layoffs is preferable, as the people who you want to remain are more likely to feel they aren't and won't be affected and not reevaluate their position. The reductions approach could work for smaller or startup companies with a flatter structure, where employees are more invested in the company's goals and successes, either through culture or shares.

[lordnacho]

It's a strange balance. Either you get a pay cut with a job that might cut again, or your colleagues get laid off with the potential that it's you next time.

Either way you'll probably be thinking about interviewing, with a bit less urgency if you get to keep your job.

[Tempest1981]

> anyone who has their salary reduced is going to reevaluate their position

And if they stay, their morale and motivation may drop 10-20%

[hinkley]

Everyone reevaluates their position after a layoff.

And people who quit don’t get severance, so it’s a win-win for the company. Or at least, they seem to think it is.

[MAGZine]

which is to say, in your org, the top performers are not the top paid? not great. sort of sounds like a way to lose your top performers if I'm honest.

[sausagefeet]

As I said, I'm not even sure how to properly measure what being a top performer is.