[chatmasta]

Here's a better version:

> Everyone else is firing people. So it seemed like a good time to fire some people.

> We found 400 people to fire, which sounded like a good number because it's not as big as 500. None of them seemed to be doing anything useful, so we fired them.

> The product will not be affected and as a user you will notice no difference whatsoever.

> Signed, some anonymous guy who took over after our CEO stepped down this week so you can't blame him for firing people.

[bottlepalm]

> there’s a looot of employees here we don’t like. Instead of going through the whole PIP/HR dance we’ve decided to give every manager a blank check to fire a few of you. The whole ‘economy’ situation is a perfect cover to do this now. Adios.

[raydev]

> we’ve decided to give every manager a blank check to fire a few of you

This hasn't been common in a lot of recent layoffs. Low level managers aren't getting input, the decision comes from the top and it's random.

[vineyardmike]

> the decision comes from the top and it's random

As someone laid off from a FAANG, it's not random. They don't lay-off the top performer. They don't lay off the woman who keeps winning peer bonuses, or the one who plays golf with the VP, or the one doing cross-team knowledge sharing sessions. They're not laying off the guy that got an out-of-band pay increase because they're so valuable to the company.

They may not use it as a PIP alternative, but it's not random. If you're an IC, you want your manager to be sharing documents with your name on it to the VP/Director. You want to be getting CC'ed in emergency product discussions. You want the senior leadership to know your name for a good thing. If your manager doesn't include you in meetings, and doesn't talk about your work, and doesn't make your presence known then your in trouble... when layoffs start and a director gets an excel spreadsheet with everyones name on, you want them to recognize your name. They're not axing the people they recognize first.

[raydev]

I know at least one manager upset that they let go preferred high performers, with suspected reasoning that their comp was too high.

[vecter]

It’s easy to comment like this from afar, but would you actually send this message if you were the CEO?

[chatmasta]

No, and the fact I'm not the CEO is why I can give a more accurate version of the statement.

However, if I were the CEO of Twitch I'd like to think I could produce a statement more direct and less impersonal than the one they did release.

[vecter]

Fair. What would you say?

[chatmasta]

Dunno, is the position open? :) (I'm taken)

Probably I'd say something about increasing efficiency and focusing on our core product. I'd still use some buzzwords but would avoid using the passive voice as a crutch to imply it's not our fault, even though we've increased revenue and it was our choice to fire people.

[vecter]

I still think that what you're describing would sound like the vague passive general corporate-talk that everyone complains about. I personally don't find any problem with it, since if I were in their shoes, I'd write the same thing. But I'm always skeptical when people say that they would do it differently as the CEO. Once you actually have that responsibility, your perspective changes. There is no point in doing anything different than what pretty much every CEO writes, and that's because they do write the most optimal thing from a business perspective, as "lame" as many may find it.