[ssssvd]

Had been advocating slower hiring & targeted reductions in a mid-sized tech firm for years after COVID, but it happened much faster under a newly appointed CEO.

Under new leadership, we executed 1/3 layoffs framed as a "culture refresh" and to briefly lift the stock. It wasn't about survival, we had plenty of cash, okayish growth and fantastic ARR - more about a new corp-backed CEO adopting a "do-it-like-Elon" approach.

Being mostly Europe-based but US-led, it turned into a massive and costly process (Americans don't exactly dig EU/UK workers rights - Spain was the biggest shock), stalling most productive activity for half a year. Internal trust and brand perception tanked. Since it began with ousting old execs, it quickly devolved into a blunt-force exercise with no internal knowledge, led by scared managers with percentage targets - many good people were cut. Managers hesitated to shield talent, given the "culture reboot" framing. I ended up personally cutting entire offices.

When the CEO's broader strategy failed (for reasons beyond layoffs), high performers started eyeing the exit. Ironically, many first saw the layoffs positively - COVID overhires had left uneven team dynamics, and some dead weight was on high salaries. But when it became clear there was no coherent plan, people began leaving.

That triggered a chain reaction. Senior hiring pipelines dried up (reputation matters, esp. when your top-talent is on the way out and is loud about it), and panic set in. Eventually, it turned into survival mode. The CEO didn't last long after that.

[alabastervlog]

There’s weirdly (to intuitive sense and business zeitgeist since the 80s or so) mixed data on layoffs in general. There’s a decent chance they cause more mid-term harm than good, most of the time.

They also didn’t used to be a regular feature of business.

It’s funny how such things become “ordinary” and “obviously good things to do sometimes” that haven’t always been the former, and may not really be the latter either.

Business management is vibes, trend-following, and fear of straying from the pack. And the best of that is vibes! That’s how bad it is.

[ssssvd]

You nailed it. In our case, EBITDA margins were "pencil on a napkin" at best — only because the CFO is usually the sanest person in the room. At the same time, Elon's moves and Meta's "year of efficiency" were super influential.

A lot of what happens in the boardroom or C-suite is "stick with the crowd" — e.g. template-based "tech modernization." (That's often a new CTO's hedge if the real problems are too hard. Just "go Cloud" or "go AI" for five years — four vests, one to jump off.) You broadcast confidence, you own the narrative. Which means never, ever saying "I don't know."

This is especially common in PE "turnarounds" or post-IPOs after founder exits. And it's especially harmful there because current staff is often seen as a liability, not an asset.

I thought a lot about this after the layoffs, and I think it boils down to how "professional C-levels" see execution as a commodity. They tend to overemphasize leadership (sometimes self-serving, but often genuine) and resource availability. The focus is on "what?" and "how to pay for it?" — with "how?" left to be figured out on the go.

I don't think that's completely wrong. Sometimes execution is a commodity. But not when you're short on time and planning for a rapid sprint.

[callc]

> But when it became clear there was no coherent plan, people began leaving.

I see this more any more, to the point of wondering what % of execs and decision makers are actually meaningfully good at the job? When times are good, any exec action will turn out fine. But when times are tough, who is worth their salt?

And if all these decision makers are bad at decision making, what would a better organization look like?

[ssssvd]

There's definitely a "peacetime" / "wartime" divide. There's also an overreliance on pedigree. But above all, it's the pressure of being a public company (which often means losing the founder).

As a new CEO, you have to impress the board and investors without really knowing the company. You probably get two earnings calls - six months at most - to prove yourself. That's nothing, even for a senior dev, let alone an exec. And if you're being brought in, it means the company isn't in great shape - or is at least perceived that way.

You don't have time to really figure out how things work, and even if you did, it's political suicide. The board didn't hire a "looks fine to me" person. They hired a fixer. So, it turns into narrative games and rapid actions with massive tail risks.

I don't think it's a people problem. It's a system problem. Leadership replanting is hard, but it's one of the very few tools in the board's toolbox.

[mock-possum]

> Americans don't exactly dig EU/UK workers, right?

I’m actually curious to hear your take on it - what’s your experience been?

[ssssvd]

UK was horrible. No real protection for workers - just layers of mandatory legal mumbo-jumbo with zero actual chances for people to keep their jobs. It was like ripping off the band-aid 1mm at a time for four months.

Spain/France were an employer’s nightmare. Anyone without another job lined up secured a "special deal"—workers have massive leverage, they know it, and they’re actively litigious. People on parental leave had close to a year of guaranteed no-shows. The reaction was, of course, "never again" rippling across American corporate circles.

The rest of Europe was okay-ish.

US was predictably the easiest. We were generous with packages, but it's easy to see how the system can be used to screw people over.

Middle East was the roughest. Visas in UAE/Qatar expire instantly, and the local tech market is almost non-existent. We extended until the end of the school year to help with visa concerns, and some people managed to arrange golden visas. But for many, it was a massive shock — losing both jobs and residency overnight.

[elliotto]

When I hear things like this, where one person has been given command of the plane and tanked it straight into the ground, with dire consequences particularly for the middle east employees you have mentioned, I am filled with concern about the stability of our systems in general. It often feels like in the history books when you read about the land the King built and then his son inherits it and burns it to the ground. This can't be a sustainable way to run a society.