[pclmulqdq]

This often does happen along with layoffs when a company is in real trouble. A problem of silicon valley culture is that you basically can't fire anyone for underperformance, so you need to have these sorts of layoffs as a prophylactic measure to cull the heard. So that means you get a cycle of "overhiring" followed by "layoffs" and that is working exactly as intended.

[bastardoperator]

California is at will, you can fire anyone for anything or even nothing. I'm yet to see poor performing executives take themselves out before they take out the people that actually create value. You don't need to have layoffs, you need better leaders, and they're the last ones to get culled, usually running off with bonuses for under-performance and lousy work.

[pclmulqdq]

Legally yes, culturally no.

[bastardoperator]

In certain cultures its okay to hurt people and not face repercussions. We typically refer to those cultures as underdeveloped.

[pclmulqdq]

Why is firing someone hurting them when it's not working out? Both the company and the person would be better off doing something else.

We have attached shame and this idea that it is "hurtful" likely because it is so rare. At a place like a hedge fund, firing the bottom 10% of people is relatively normal, so being fired can sometimes just mean "you had a bad 6 months" not "you am a terrible person who does not deserve to work anywhere" (which seems to be how tech people and Europeans think of it). In that environment, there isn't any shame involved in the firing and everyone gets on with their lives (usually including a cushy severance package).

[bastardoperator]

The executive failed to ensure profitability which is their entire focus. They are the ones that should be laid off first. You're giving them a pass which is literally the crux of the problem, these people are allowed to fail up at others expense. I'm talking about the dropbox layoffs, you're talking about just cause termination which is again completely meaningless in California.

[anticensor]

For-cause and not-for-cause terminations have different legal consequences for involved parties even in at-will jurisdictions.

[pclmulqdq]

I am telling you that "layoffs" are the mechanism by which silicon valley makes just cause termination culturally acceptable. If a silicon valley firm decided to fire the bottom 5%, they would lose huge amounts of talent that doesn't want to work in a "competitive" environment. If the bottom 10-20% happen to get "laid off" every 3 years, that's just an "unfortunate oversight" and a "management oops" that they take "full responsibility" for.

These layoffs do not generally happen when executives and companies fail; they happen as a matter of course. They are, of course, accompanied by rhetoric about executive failure (again, a cultural cover), but nothing more. When executives actually fail, executives get fired.

[johnnyanmac]

>Why is firing someone hurting them when it's not working out?

"Not working out" is doing a Herculean amount of lifting. In this case, "not working out" is "we want to make earnings calls look better and do more work with less people". Yes, you are hurting everyone in your company by doing that.

>We have attached shame and this idea that it is "hurtful" likely because it is so rare

Yes. I'd really hope that the singular good thing from this 5,6,8 round interview cycle for hiring that you somehow didn't hire someone who managed to underperform on the job. Maybe I'd even agree with you about firing culture if I believed for a second that it meant they'd be more lax in the 4 month interview process and do more probation trials.

But that's just hopes and dreams for now.

>At a place like a hedge fund, firing the bottom 10% of people is relatively normal, so being fired can sometimes just mean "you had a bad 6 months" not "you am a terrible person who does not deserve to work anywhere" (which seems to be how tech people and Europeans think of it)

Again, tell that to the recruiters. You're seeing it among peers, but there's a lot of stigma that if you got laid off you must have been "one of the bad ones". It's absolutely not true, but with so much fascination on "why did you leave your job" you can see how people really feel.

>there isn't any shame involved in the firing and everyone gets on with their lives (usually including a cushy severance package).

Yeah, I wish. Not all tech companies are created equally. Mind you I hate stack ranking, but if you're going to something as fast paced as a hedge fund, those 6 months will pay you well. So you're rolling the dice youself there.

[pclmulqdq]

> Again, tell that to the recruiters. You're seeing it among peers, but there's a lot of stigma that if you got laid off you must have been "one of the bad ones". It's absolutely not true, but with so much fascination on "why did you leave your job" you can see how people really feel.

Yeah, I agree with you that this is mostly on the risk-aversion of recruiters. There seems to have been this vicious cycle of firing being harder and more stigmatized combined with companies being more picky when they hire. Nobody really benefits from this, though.