Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That always happens. The problem is the CEO needs an internal partner to get a list of people who need to be let go. And that's generally delegated to the immediate exec staff, they delegate to some layers below and when the list is built, it bubbles up back to the CEO.

In the process, most people think performance is the key to decide who stays and who leaves. While the fact is first ones to go are political enemies, followed by people who pose threat to the middle management(Kind of people who managers think will eventually take their job, if they stay) these kind of people are worst sufferers, because they would have performed well only to be perceived as threats. Next come people who don't fit well in the organization's pay parity. The last one's if they ever go are weak people who can be sacrificed to save manager's yes men and manger's inner circle.

What generally remains are people who are yes men, political alliances and generally people and partners needed to keep political cartels running.

Which is why if a company is laying off people, its generally an indication they will perform worse in the time to come. Because a round of good people have been laid off, many good ones are leaving. And worst stay on, and are more entrenched in the new set up.



That's because when the performance evaluations are top-down and forced to a curve, "performance" itself is a resource to be allocated, and resource allocation decisions are always political.


It's the "evaporative cooling" of groups.


"The problem is the CEO needs an internal partner to get a list of people who need to be let go."

Prepare three envelopes...




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: