Since the significant "reduction in force" implemented at Twitter, there is growing commentary suggesting tech sector CEOs are (silently) applauding the move, as it gives them cover to implement similar redundancy programs under the guise of reducing overheads and improving staff productivity.

This ignores the fact that it is too early to assess whether Twitter's approach has been successful. Unfortunately, most discussion appears to set a low bar, positioning it more as an infrastructure issue (how few employees are required to keep the site active?) rather than a business question (what is the right mix of staff/roles required to run a profitable and legally-compliant global social media platform that maintains the legitimacy, credibility, and trust of its users in order to retain a 'social licence' to operate?).

It is refreshing to see an alternate view of the practical implications of layoffs put so cogently, while also striking at the heart of the matter: reducing headcount does not, in and of itself, address underlying business challenges.

>>
Moreover, layoffs don’t work to improve company performance...Academic studies have shown that time and time again, workplace reductions don’t do much for paring costs. Severance packages cost money, layoffs increase unemployment insurance rates, and cuts reduce workplace morale and productivity as remaining employees are left wondering, “Could I be fired too?”
...
Layoffs do not solve what is often the underlying problem, which is often an ineffective strategy, a loss of market share, or too little revenue. Layoffs are basically a bad decision.
>>

#layoffs #layoffs2023 #business #strategy #productivity #tech #work #socialmedia