[steve_adams_86]

A great alternative would be operating a company correctly so you don't end up in a situation where you need to cut 30k jobs at once with no notice. That's a bizarre thing that's becoming practically normalized in the USA tech industry.

[IshKebab]

The realistic alternative is to regularly cut a smaller number of people, which is awful for morale.

[steve_adams_86]

Does it have to be awful for morale if the reasoning is clear and compassionate? People understand that shit happens.

And I don't mean this in a mean or evil way, but (of course there's a but) I wonder if this would motivate people to work more effectively as well. My organization has had cuts lately, but it hasn't in a decade. It has been transformative. People are reminded that their jobs depend on them showing up and being valuable.

I don't want people to be scared for their jobs. Perhaps this cycle creates false security, though. There must be a balance in here somewhere.

[nedt]

People tend to be bad in estimating the performance of others and are almost always bad in estimating their own performance. So you end up with people asking themself why it wasn't them and if they will be next. And management can't tell you you are safe, because it might change - and if they promise they can only do that once.

[DebtDeflation]

Agree. People understand and accept firing for performance issues. People understand and accept layoffs when they're a rare event needed to save the company from bankruptcy. What's not understandable or acceptable to most is the current trend of companies doing annual or even quarterly layoffs as an ongoing way to manage earnings.