LinkedIn just laid off employees for the second time this year (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/16/microsoft-owned-linkedin-lays-off-nearly-700-read-the-memo-here.html)
When I see news like this, here are some questions that come to mind when not explained:
❓ If roles are no longer needed, were the people in those roles first offered options of working in other units? Or retraining for other work that is needed?
❓ If the people being laid off were judged lower or poor performers, why wasn’t that addressed by the performance management system instead of by a layoff?
❓ Why is adapting organizational structures often associated with layoffs rather than done as an ongoing process and viewed as a core organizational capability?
❓ This layoff includes a number of managers. Part of the memo cites “driving improved efficiency & transparency through reduced layering”. Did the managers know that they weren’t sufficiently transparent or their areas insufficiently efficient (cost or otherwise)? Were they given an opportunity to make improvements or suggestions (i.e., back to the performance management system question)? Options to do something else?
❓ Were roles incorrectly established or the wrong people hired … i.e., are there other causes for this situation outside the control of the people being laid off? Who was responsible for what was outside the control of the people being laid off? For instance, who set up the layering in the first place that led to a need for reduced layers? Are they included in the layoff?
❓ If indeed “every affected individual has played a valuable role in the growth and success of Linkedin”, then did that value suddenly stop? Did value erode over time but was not addressed? Or was it a leadership issue outside the people affected that caused the value reduction?
❓ Will senior leaders be rewarded in some way for the layoffs? Are any senior leaders included in the layoff, if the situation was at least in part caused by them? The article states LinkedIn has seen “year-over-year revenue growth slow for eight consecutive quarters” … this wasn’t an overnight issue.
❓ Why are some jobs being shifted to another country, presumably for “cost savings,” especially if valuable experience will be lost in the transition and causing at least short-term inefficiencies … the opposite of “efficiencies” sought via this action?
❓ One of the goals is to “improve agility.” What is meant by that? If there is a mostly top-down decision approach for “agility” in response to market changes and organizational needs, then agility will be significantly limited.
❓ Fundamentally, are people being treated with respect or as widgets?
How does your company deal with needed changes?
In occasional spasms, often including layoffs? Or something that is continually addressed?
Are employees involved in helping make needed changes happen … change is done “with them”? Or is change done “to them”?
Leaders: how can you improve your change leadership? Increase organizational change capability?
Leave a Reply