[danpalmer]

> I appreciate the one clean cut vs prolonged bleeding.

That's a false dichotomy, you could reduce headcount via attrition which is better in some ways.

There's also no reasoning on product impact. Is the strategy to cut products that aren't making money? Is the strategy to cut 40% across everyone because everyone can go faster?

> Owning the decision

Does it? It came across to me as an inevitability of AI, not "we over-hired". Layoffs are always a mis-management issue, because the opposite (hiring) is a management issue. If management failed to see where the market was going and now needs a different workforce, that's still a management issue.

> respecting the people that got you there

There's words, and there's money, and on these it's pretty good. But there's also an empathy with the experience they're about to go through and I'm not sure there's much of that here beyond the words. To do this well you'd need to think through what folks are about to go through and look for ways you can positively impact that beyond actions today. I've seen some companies do this better, helping teams get re-hired elsewhere, splitting off businesses to sell to other companies, incubating startups, there are lots of options. Hard, especially at this scale, but possible.

> But realistically, you can't pen a better (or, well, less bad) layoff announcement.

And this is the crux of my point, I really think you can. This was a good one, one of the better I've seen, but it's still within the realm of SV companies laying people off. In some companies, countries, industries, this would look very different, and better.

[vessenes]

You cannot attrite 40% of the company in 5 months, without creating an incredibly toxic environment. Dorsey knows this; ultimately he lost Twitter over his inability to right size it. I would bet dollars to donuts he promised himself he wouldn't do it again - under no circumstances is 40% cut over six months preferable to a clean fast cut.

[ezfe]

Voluntary severance/ERO is possible without a bad culture. I’ve seen it done, people love it.

[danpalmer]

Sure but 5 months isn't the comparison. They state that they're cutting early. We don't know the exact position, but perhaps over 2-3 years would be ok, and 40% in 3 years isn't unheard of, particularly in the valley, and particularly with incentives.

[croisillon]

a donut costs way more than a dollar so losing your bet makes you win?

[belval]

> you could reduce headcount via attrition which is better in some ways

I don't think reducing via attrition is better for the company, for the employees 100%, but attrition would be your people moving to other companies and retirement. It means that you are effectively bleeding your people with options (usually above average) and those with the most experience in favor of "the rest".

[danpalmer]

It's a nuanced trade-off. It's worse for the company as you said, it may be worse for the employees because some will leave from burnout without severance, those remaining will have more work to do typically.

But my point was that what was presented was a false dichotomy and that framing it as such is disingenuous to employees receiving those comms.

[weird-eye-issue]

> prolonged bleeding.

> That's a false dichotomy, you could reduce headcount via attrition which is better in some ways.

That's the same thing. And they can't control which roles are lost. It's the worst thing for the company itself and those remaining.

[marcyb5st]

I don't agree about the attrition bit.

On paper you're right, but in reality while doing so you give the incentive to higher-ups to set in place measures that make the life of their underlings atrocious. Mandatory RTO for no clear reason, jumping through hoops to get anything done, cut to budgets, ... . At least that what I experienced and talking with friends that was the case for them as well.

[giarc]

>That's a false dichotomy, you could reduce headcount via attrition which is better in some ways.

I disagree. Slow bleeding just means everyone in the company walks around thinking they are next, never knowing when the next set of cuts are going to happen or when they are finished. Cutting 40% is a quick blow, and everyone that is left knows they are safe.

[overfeed]

Attrition by definition implies no cuts: just people leaving for the usual reasons people leave, and not replacing them. Attrition can be accelerated by providing incentives like exit bonuses.