Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9221455" data-attributes="member: 18">You have to be joking.Anyone who has worked in a corporate environment, especially a large one, knows that an awful lot of major factors get completely ignored when you do stuff like cut "20% of headcount". You want to imagine this is careful trimming. It never, ever, is when it's on this large a scale. Never. It's a fantasy to think it is.Further, this is being presented as opinion. It's a lot more informed, than say, your opinion (or mine, I suspect), and you seem to trying to engage in some sort odd sniping at it by intentionally misrepresenting it? Very strange and unhelpful, frankly.Yeah this is wild to me. Having worked in this kind of environment, they're absolutely full of good people and good intentions, but when the axe swings, yeah some people who were underperforming or were technically unnecessary will go, for sure (I've been one of the latter, before), but in big cuts like these, you tend to lose a lot of good people too, often people you actually need, but someone whose job is to make big cuts doesn't go around and elaborately survey people at the level you'd need to in order to work that out. They've got their metrics, and maybe there are people on that list who "need to go", and some who are "protected" but it's mostly going to be numbers.Well said.</blockquote>