But to achieve the massive scale of our mission, we cannot default to operating as a heavily-layered organization. We must be a lean, hyper-focused team where every single individual is empowered to make a massive impact. [...] To achieve that, today we are flattening our org structure and reducing our overall team size by 10% of headcount.
Sounds like they're getting rid of a lot of middle-management? Proof is in the pudding I guess.
That said, the original isn't exactly inspiring or comforting. So long and thanks for all your hours, kinda.
> Since business is going exceptionally well, we have the luxury of conducting layoffs from a position of strength rather than necessity. Wall Street generally prefers companies that produce the same revenue with fewer employees, so we are removing 10% of the employees and setting the expectation that the remaining 90% will figure it out.
I don't consider myself to be pro-business, but... how is this controversial?
It reflects incredibly poorly on management, bordering on incompetence. If those 10% of employees were needed, then management obviously shouldn’t fire them just to make the stock price go up. If they weren’t actually needed, then management shouldn’t have hired them in the first place. If they’re only sorta needed, then that means management wasn’t able to come up with any ideas to grow the business.
Furthermore, regardless of what expectations are set, it’s not the remaining employees’ job to figure out how to do 111% of the work. That’s literally the job of management.
This is basically the modus operandi of almost every company these days. Where do you think anyone is gonna go? I sure as shit can't name any companies that don't act like this.
Indeed. To be honest, the last two words of the translation alone really sum up the whole thing and would save everyone a lot of time and disrespectful, dishonest babbling.
Also I thought it was Merry Men? Well certain subgroup is probably against using term Men and probably also anything considered merry in general. Still, it would have made so much sense.
But to achieve the massive scale of our mission, we cannot default to operating as a heavily-layered organization. We must be a lean, hyper-focused team where every single individual is empowered to make a massive impact. [...] To achieve that, today we are flattening our org structure and reducing our overall team size by 10% of headcount.
Sounds like they're getting rid of a lot of middle-management? Proof is in the pudding I guess.
That said, the original isn't exactly inspiring or comforting. So long and thanks for all your hours, kinda.
> Since business is going exceptionally well, we have the luxury of conducting layoffs from a position of strength rather than necessity. Wall Street generally prefers companies that produce the same revenue with fewer employees, so we are removing 10% of the employees and setting the expectation that the remaining 90% will figure it out.
I don't consider myself to be pro-business, but... how is this controversial?
It reflects incredibly poorly on management, bordering on incompetence. If those 10% of employees were needed, then management obviously shouldn’t fire them just to make the stock price go up. If they weren’t actually needed, then management shouldn’t have hired them in the first place. If they’re only sorta needed, then that means management wasn’t able to come up with any ideas to grow the business.
Furthermore, regardless of what expectations are set, it’s not the remaining employees’ job to figure out how to do 111% of the work. That’s literally the job of management.
But people still work at these garbage companies. I get that they need a job somewhere, but with this lack of respect, I’d be looking immediately.
This is basically the modus operandi of almost every company these days. Where do you think anyone is gonna go? I sure as shit can't name any companies that don't act like this.
In this market they can essentially all collude to treat employees like garbage
This website is awesome.
I challenge a CEO to just post the translation instead of the garbage they usually spew.
Indeed. To be honest, the last two words of the translation alone really sum up the whole thing and would save everyone a lot of time and disrespectful, dishonest babbling.
> Robinhoodies,
We are one big family, until we dispose of you.
Also I thought it was Merry Men? Well certain subgroup is probably against using term Men and probably also anything considered merry in general. Still, it would have made so much sense.
Robin Hood you were supposed to take from the rich and give it to the poor!
At least they didn't blame AI?
They’re saving that for the next one