u/Virtual-Grand-5421 wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
not a codesmith student, graduate, or supporter, but firing and laying people off are not the same thing. over 150,000 people in tech got laid off last year. the phrase "laid off because of their performance" is a slap in the face to anyone who's been in that situation and now no
u/michaelnovati replied · ★ FEATURED
I both agree and disagree. So first off, the highest performers are ALWAYS KEPT. Just think about it. You have a company. You spent a ton of time getting some amazing people. You have to layoff a team. You will keep these top people and move them ANYWHERE. It would be ridiculous to keep (or resume) hiring outside people who are probably worse performers than keeping your top talent.
So people who are laid off might not be the worst but they generally are not the top 10% either.
Now lets say you are a manager and you have to remove 2 engineers out of 10 on your team. Who do you choose?
The lowest performers.
Let's say they ask you to get your budget down to $X instead. You fire the people with the worst pay : performance ratio.
Let's say the entire team is cut. You director/VP of the org will hand pick the top people and move them.
Finally, the term "performance base layoff" is being used by Microsoft and Meta now and it's explicitly underperformance as the reason.
So this is why it has a bad stigma even if you weren't a low performer.
BUT!!!!
I believe very strongly that performance isn't a fixed trait. My partner was fired from Meta for performance and then was one of the fastest entry -> staff at Nextdoor and talks about this a lot.
There is a right company for everyone and a layoff doesn't mean you suck, but you do have to confront the situation with honesty and integrity to learn.