[nomel]

Even if they do, they've culled those that they deemed weren't a good fit, possibly changing the hiring criteria. If the criteria for both is rational, purging can be very good for an org, and the employees. Crap managers make jobs suck for everyone involved.

edit: I'll say, I've only ever left a job because of a manager. Shortly before leaving my current job, due to a crap manager, the previous manager was fired. The entire org benefited.

[jmull]

These guys either hired 14K bad/useless managers, or fired 14K decent, useful managers, or some combination of both.

I wouldn't bet they will suddenly become good at hiring managers.

[nomel]

I don't think it's useful to look at absolutes like this.

The question is, how many managers did they hire since the last round of layoffs, and what percent are being layed off now? Or, in other words, what's the bad hire rate? How does that unavoidable number compare to the industry?

14k people is 0.9% of their employees. Let's say they have a 16% manager ratio. That's maybe 5% of their management. What's the management/non-management ratio? Is it meant to balance for the reductions in headcount?

[snoman]

> they've culled those that they deemed weren't a good fit…

I think it’s worthwhile challenging this assumption. In a layoff, with that many people, I don’t think you can say much beyond that the company doesn’t want to pay them anymore.

[nomel]

I can't really comprehend this, as someone involved with several layoffs (failing startup and corporate). Do you believe the layoffs are by lottery or something? If not lottery, who do you believe is selecting the individuals, and what's the criteria?

If these layoffs are any like I've been involved with, nobody is surprised by who stays. It's almost obvious. There are sometimes surprises by who lets go, usually having to do with the required headcount, where some better ones need to get let go too.

> In a layoff, with that many people

Absolute numbers are often used to appeal to emotion. It's less than 1%! Assuming 16% manager/non ratio, it's only 5% of management, so I suspect they aren't cutting too deep, or at all, into the high performing people.