Meta cuts 5% of jobs to lose 'lowest performers'.

[Magna-Carta]

Meta, the owner of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, is preparing to cut about 5% of its global workforce, as the company looks to drop "low performers faster".

I’ve worked for a company for the past 31 years, where if someone in the organisation is struggling with their performance, then line management will create a Performance Action Plan. Focusing on supporting employees to identify and overcome their difficulties, through coaching, training, or other interventions. It might seem like a cliche, but it is about seeing employees as assets to be developed, rather than liabilities to be shed.

At META, it seems you are more likely to get the sack. It seems like a throwback from the last century.

Mark Zuckerberg said he has decided to speed up the firm's regular performance-based cuts. He also said, "When you're running a company, people typically don't wanna see you being like this ruthless person who's just like I'm gonna crush the people I'm competing with," he said. "But when you're fighting, it's like no.” Whatever that is supposed to mean.

Mark said to Joe Rogan that he thought companies needed more "masculine energy".

Apparently, Mark Zuckerberg is a ‘manager’. Seems like a manager of a cutthroat performance driven culture. That might foster a culture of fear, and discourage genuine collaboration?

 

[AnnieA]

Meta has been hemorrhaging money over the past year or two. I imagine Zuckerberg isn’t working to improve low performers because he’s cutting back.

As for the “masculine energy” thing, he’s trying to be cool in the broverse. He’s never struck me as much other than weasely. His congressional testimony regarding child sexual abuse content on instagram was disturbing.

 

[Magna-Carta]

Meta has been hemorrhaging money over the past year or two. I imagine Zuckerberg isn’t working to improve low performers because he’s cutting back.

As for the “masculine energy” thing, he’s trying to be cool in the broverse. He’s never struck me as much other than weasely. His congressional testimony regarding child sexual abuse content on instagram was disturbing.

I'm not convinced he's cutting back on this occasion, based on him saying the company would "backfill" the roles later. It seems to be an ongoing company policy. Only this year he will be doing it faster.

As for the broverse, I wonder if he is ramping things up in his management style to impress in the incoming administration. Call me cynical.

 

[AnnieA]

I'm not convinced he's cutting back on this occasion, based on him saying the company would "backfill" the roles later. It seems to be an ongoing company policy. Only this year he will be doing it faster.

I dunno. Saying he’ll backfill later could be face saving. I don’t think he’s trustworthy so feel trying to figure out what he means is a futile exercise.

 

[dilettante]

performance driven culture

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

 

[Magna-Carta]

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

Don't deliberately selectively miss quote me. I work in a performance driven culture, full of KPI's deadlines & targets, where everyone supports each other, and and fine with that. My post #3 was referring to, and said, "...a cutthroat performance driven culture."

 

[seadoug]

Were these the fact-checkers?

 

[dilettante]

I can't imagine how this is news. Times are tough and a lot of companies are faced with culling the herd.

It's a business.

 

[AnnieA]

As for the broverse, I wonder if he is ramping things up in his management style to impress in the incoming administration. Call me cynical.

Not cynical at all. Dana White’s appointment to Meta’s board is a clear indicator Zuckerberg is currying favor. He caved to censorship demands for the present administration and has only admitted it after they lost. The next ideological shift in the executive branch, he’ll likely reinvent himself again. The guy definitely goes with the prevailing winds.

 

[HermitHogan]

F*ck Meta. F*ck Facebook. I have no use for them, and never really did.

 

[OneEyedDiva]

I'm not convinced he's cutting back on this occasion, based on him saying the company would "backfill" the roles later. It seems to be an ongoing company policy. Only this year he will be doing it faster.

As for the broverse, I wonder if he is ramping things up in his management style to impress in the incoming administration. Call me cynical.

"As for the broverse, I wonder if he is ramping things up in his management style to impress in the incoming administration. Call me cynical."

I think you hit the nail on the head.

 

[Packerjohn]

The rich never made their money by being nice to people.

In case you haven't heard: "The rich stay rich and the poor stay poor."

 

[George1959]

In case you haven't heard: "The rich stay rich and the poor stay poor."

Ad infinitum!

Why? The rich have no interest in changing the system.

 

[Rakaia]

Seems like a manager of a cutthroat performance driven culture. That might foster a culture of fear, and discourage genuine collaboration?

I'm sure Phoquerberg wants subservient employees.

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

OK dilly, would you care to elaborate on that?
Do you think it's a good thing?
If so,why?

 

[Twostep]

It is a business decision. Using metrics such as performance keeps the decision defendable.

 

[dilettante]

OK dilly, would you care to elaborate on that?
Do you think it's a good thing?
If so,why?

If you need to hire somebody to work on your roof and some guy your neighbor hired for this left a mess behind and a roof that leaked and eventually sagged and wasn't vented properly, surely you won't hire him to work for you?

Of course not, his performance is not up to par.

The world is not a kindergarten, no matter how hard Marxists want to pretend it is.

 

[Rakaia]

If you need to hire somebody to work on your roof and some guy your neighbor hired for this left a mess behind and a roof that leaked and eventually sagged and wasn't vented properly, surely you won't hire him to work for you?

Of course not, his performance is not up to par.

The world is not a kindergarten, no matter how hard Marxists want to pretend it is.

Oh really?
I don't see any reasoning just a simple analogy, rather like the accountant giving me perfectly correct but useless information.

 

[dilettante]

Oh really?
I don't see any reasoning just a simple analogy, rather like the accountant giving me perfectly correct but useless information.

Would you hire the poor performer just because he tells a good sob story?

 

[Rakaia]

Would you hire the poor performer just because he tells a good sob story?

Of course not.

 

[Lavinia]

Perhaps in future, they need to make sure their employees are properly trained before they hire them.

 

[dilettante]

Aptitude, education, experience, and dedication are the keys. "Training" is the smallest piece.

These are by and large DEI hires.

 

[Rakaia]

Clearly masculine energy is a performance indicator in this instance.

 

[VaughanJB]

It depends on the criteria used to define "low performers". Given all the divisions and tasks in such a business, it can't simply be those whose work isn't up to scratch. At least, it sounds improbable.

For example, I support a football team that is getting rid of players who are the highest earners, because they're changed strategy to get young, and cheaper people. But some of those players who have been sold/let go were our best performers. Where they "failed" was in having a high salary.

How these things are defined is key.

 

[That Lady in PA]

Those let go will land on their feet.

Our son-in-law (SIL) got caught up in one of these 10 years ago, with a rival company in the area. Several thousands were let go, not because of their low performance, but because of the low performance of the products they were working on.
SIL thoroughly enjoyed unemployment for 8 months, then was hired one day after throwing his hat back into the ring.
SIL got a 25% salary increase, and an insane amount of stock bonus every years for four years.

 

[That Lady in PA]

It depends on the criteria used to define "low performers". Given all the divisions and tasks in such a business, it can't simply be those whose work isn't up to scratch. At least, it sounds improbable.

For example, I support a football team that is getting rid of players who are the highest earners, because they're changed strategy to get young, and cheaper people. But some of those players who have been sold/let go were our best performers. Where they "failed" was in having a high salary.

How these things are defined is key.

You nailed it!