this post was submitted on 16 May 2026
484 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

84731 readers
3124 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 90 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Meta is doing the exact same thing:

Mark Zuckerberg's social media giant will reportedly hand out roughly 8,000 pink slips on Wednesday, May 20, eliminating about 10% of its global workforce. Notably, though, these cuts will arrive on the heels of one of the most lucrative quarters in the company's history: $56.31 billion in revenue and $26.8 billion in net income for the first three months of 2026...

https://moneywise.com/news/top-stories/meta-layoffs-8000-workers-zuckerberg-ai-spending

[–] ThePyroPython@lemmy.world 82 points 2 days ago (11 children)

Slashing 10% of your workforce annually is something Jack Welch thought of when he was CEO of General Electric; essentially it shifts that 10% of staff overhead cost straight to profits per year.

The justification they give for the figure is that it's the lowest performing 10% according to internal key performance indicator (KPI) metrics. What this effectively does is two fold:

  1. Anyone who's focusing on delivering stuff the company needs long term isn't always or sometimes never will produce nice neat KPIs that can be measured along with the rest of the company. This means these people are under constant pressure and can often get swept up in the firings.

  2. It makes KPIs, a measuring tool, the target which as any statistician will tell you that when you make the measurement a target it ceases to be a good measuring tool. Because everyone is automatically incentivised to deliver KPIs NOT the actual company deliverables that generate the added value and therefore the profit.

This means after 5 to 10 years of this cycle all that's left of the company's institutional knowledge is how to deliver for KPIs and the sycophants who best adapt to this reality. You get a hollowing out of the company.

If this AI fuelled trend keeps up then companies like Cisco and Meta will eventually implode at some point.

[–] assertnull@programming.dev 1 points 15 hours ago

makes KPIs, a measuring tool, the target which as any statistician will tell you that when you make the measurement a target it ceases to be a good measuring tool

This came up recently elsewhere and is known as “Goodhart’s Law

[–] Razak@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago

Yup. Not all value is easily and directly measurable. Trying to overmanage and only value measurable factors is incredibly counterproductive. But hey, that makes the stock price go up. So who cares about anything else.

[–] binarytobis@lemmy.world 42 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I remember the grocery store I worked at started posting the rate for each cashier of items scanned per minute logged into a register. They didn’t say anything about it, but I now realize they were probably leading into using that data as justification for something.

My dumbass 16 year old self thought “I’m going to get that number so high it breaks the system.” I would lock my station after the previous customer, and take a little time to face all of the UPC codes and look up produce codes and make a general strategy. Then, I would unlock the register, scan like a madman, then lock it and casually start bagging. The customers would get concerned they needed to hurry up based on my fervor, so I would tell them “Take all the time you need, see that show yesterday?”

Next time they posted the rankings, my number was 20x as high as second place. After a few weeks of getting my number a little higher each time, my boss’ boss came by and told me to knock it off since I was polluting their metrics. Next week no new rankings.

I like to think I inadvertently helped prevent KPI nonsense.

[–] greybeard@feddit.online 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The grocery store I worked for, over 20 years ago, did something similar, with similar results. All it did was incentivize locking and unlocking the register as optimally as possible. They also tracked how often and when in the transaction you scanned the customer's loyalty card. It was to the point that basically cashiers who wanted to optimize their numbers wouldn't unlock the register until the customer had their loyalty card in hand.

This is the same grocery store chain that almost failed completely due to a impossible sales requirements in their meat department leading to redating meat and bleaching chicken to increase its shelf life. The company claims they never asked any of their meat departments to do anything like that, they just set impossible standards and held people accountable unless they were able to find a way to cheat.

[–] Danquebec@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

That's quite funny, would love to see it in action.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 27 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

It also fosters a culture of non-cooperation with colleagues (because they are now your competition), where workers and teams try to sabotage each other, or at least not help, and throw each other under the bus. So there's mutual mistrust too. And no one wants to take a risk and innovate, leading to further stagnation.

[–] testaccount789@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

But that will be a problem for the next guy.

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

Today's fires are for next quarter's employees to fix.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This means after 5 to 10 years of this cycle all that's left of the company's institutional knowledge is how to deliver for KPIs and the sycophants who best adapt to this reality. You get a hollowing out of the company.

That happened (and continues to happen) to my former employer.

After years of layoffs and outsourcing, the company doesn't have anyone on staff anymore who knows how half of the systems work.

Theae days, if something is more than 5 years old, the operations and maintenance staff (entirely outsourced contractors now) have to pray the documentation is correct (or even obtainable) if they have a hope of fixing it if anything breaks.

[–] farting_gorilla@lemmy.world 0 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

My experience is nowadays documentation is even going to go away, as the answer to fixing things is more and more going to be "get Claude to fix it"

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 hours ago

the answer to fixing things is more and more going to be "get Claude to fix it"

Yeah that will certainly work (eyeroll) to deal with things that were done 10 years ago as a workaround to some other undocumented incompatibility.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The justification they give for the figure is that it's the lowest performing 10%

But that would be turnover rate, not cuts.

[–] Brummbaer@pawb.social 22 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think we are already seeing that with Microsoft. Another 2-3 rounds of AI and they forget how to build windows.

[–] WaxRhetorical@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Are you telling me they ever knew how to build Windows?

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

4x pain + 1 glass

Or, alternatively:

[–] Zagorath@quokk.au 13 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The justification they give for the figure is that it’s the lowest performing 10% according to internal key performance indicator (KPI) metrics

The thing is, that's not what layoffs are supposed to be. That's effectively firing someone for cause. Maybe in America the difference doesn't matter, but in the civilised world, at least in theory, it does. But in reality they can somehow get away with this and call it "layoffs".

If a company does layoffs, they should not be allowed to hire any staff in the same or similar roles for 12 months.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

If a company does layoffs, they should not be allowed to hire any staff in the same or similar roles for 12 months.

The workload doesn't decrease, it just gets spread to the remaining workers who are already overloaded because of the previous round of layoffs...

[–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

If a company does layoffs, they should not be allowed to hire any staff in the same or similar roles for 12 months.

Either that, or the laid-off workers should get right of first refusal for the positions. (Along with some additional incentive for the company not to game it.)

[–] pelya@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

With Meta it very much looks like overhiring. What are those 8000 workers even doing, designing CSS for each individual ad on Facebook?

This blows my mind when I try to think about it. And this is only 10% of a supposed 80,000 globally. Facebook owns a bunch of companies though so I’m assuming they’re being counted too. Instagram, WhatsApp, Oculus, etc

[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Implementing additional forms of wankery in the "Metaverse".

[–] Blooper@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago
[–] errer@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I actually think a few % a year is healthy (1% feels right to me). I work at a company where we never lay anyone off and it’s led to a bunch of deadweight in the company that make work harder for everyone else. You gotta have some mechanism to let low performers go.

10% is way too high though

[–] grue@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You gotta have some mechanism to let low performers go.

That's called "firing for cause."

[–] errer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

“For cause” at my company is gross malfeasance, not merely performing well below expectations. It’s the employer again putting themselves first: problematic employees are “harder” to get rid of than the status quo of letting them stick around indefinitely. Sucks for everyone else who has to work with them. Every company should cull a small number of people every year.

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago

It should be case by case. Simple as that.

[–] gurty@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I was about to say, two layoff posts on my feed back to back. Not a good sign.