From: smirzo@example.com   
      
   Meta laid off 5% of its workforce, calling them ‘low performers.’ Those   
   who were laid off see things differently—and they’re speaking out.   
      
                        Joe Berkowitz (4 minute read)   
      
   Meta underwent another big round of layoffs on Monday, cutting 3,600   
   jobs, or roughly 5%, of its total workforce. Between 2022 and 2023, the   
   tech giant eliminated 21,000 positions, nearly a quarter of its   
   workforce, and continued to reduce staff in 2024. But while those other   
   recent reductions appeared driven by organizational restructuring and   
   cost-cutting efforts, CEO Mark Zuckerberg seemed to tie this week’s   
   layoffs to those he deemed “low performers.”   
      
   “I’ve decided to raise the bar on performance management and move out   
   low performers faster,” Zuckerberg wrote in an internal memo when   
   announcing the cuts in January. “We typically manage out people who   
   aren’t meeting expectations over the course of a year, but now we’re   
   going to do more extensive performance-based cuts during this cycle.”   
      
   Some of the employees who have just been let go object to this   
   characterization, though, and they are fighting back.   
      
   Layoffs are increasingly common in tech, but they’re often framed as a   
   failure of the company and its leaders rather than a reflection of   
   individual employees. (Although Amazon famously culls its workforce   
   based on performance metrics, and Microsoft reportedly has plans to do   
   the same.) Given Meta’s public trumpeting of the “low-performer”   
   criteria for this recent initiative, however, being swept up in this   
   batch of layoffs seems closer to just getting fired.   
      
   When these newly unemployed workers apply for other jobs, the concern is   
   that hiring managers who might ordinarily be impressed with seeing   
   “Facebook” on a CV will know exactly why these applicants are suddenly   
   on the market—and, as a result, may be less inclined to give them a   
   chance to defend themselves in an interview.   
      
   Instead of waiting to find out for sure, some laid-off workers have   
   started preemptively defending themselves online—and they are bringing   
   receipts.   
      
   Kaila Curry, who, until Monday, worked in product content operations at   
   Meta, posted on LinkedIn her surprise at being lumped in with supposed   
   low performers after receiving an “exceeds expectations” in her mid-year   
   review. “I frequently asked for feedback and was always told I was doing   
   a good job,” she wrote in the post. “I was never placed on a   
   [performance improvement plan], never given corrective feedback, and   
   never properly mentored or provided clear expectations.   
      
   Curry’s experience lines up with a new report from Business Insider,   
   claiming Meta’s director of people experience allowed managers to add   
   employees from higher-performance tiers to those marked for layoffs if   
   they couldn’t reach their reduction goals just from lower-rated   
   employees. A spokesperson for Meta tells Fast Company that these were   
   “performance-based terminations,” adding, “Prior ratings were not   
   downgraded. Simply because someone had a history of meeting or exceeding   
   expectations does not mean they continue to consistently meet the bar.”   
      
   In searching for other potential reasons for her inclusion in the   
   layoffs, though, Curry cites one recent incident: “Perhaps I became too   
   vocal when our shift to young adult (YA) content involved removing   
   safeguards that protected LGBTQ+ users.”   
      
   The past few months have been a time of transition for Meta. The company   
   has recently made major changes to its content moderation and DEI   
   policies that appear in line with Zuckerberg’s recent embrace of   
   President Trump. (The CEO also donated to Trump’s inauguration fund,   
   added UFC CEO and Trump ally Dana White to Meta’s board, and declared on   
   Joe Rogan’s podcast in January that companies currently need more   
   “masculine energy.“)   
      
   Another former employee, data scientist Joshua Latshaw, was also taken   
   aback by his inclusion in the layoffs. As he wrote on LinkedIn, his   
   five-year history with the company included several “exceeds   
   expectations” ratings and a promotion. (His post even includes   
   screenshots of those reviews in the comments.) According to Latshaw’s   
   post, a “meets most expectations” in 2024 followed months of turmoil   
   within his team—with the managers who conducted his review having only   
   worked with him for less than six weeks.   
      
   “This is the first [Performance Summary Cycle] at [M]eta that I wasn’t   
   exactly correct in predicting my rating,” he wrote.   
      
   The lone “meets most expectations” rating in Latshaw’s tenure at Meta   
   was also striking, he notes, because it followed his taking parental   
   leave earlier in the year. Over on Reddit’s r/Layoffs sub, a   
   pseudonymous poster, identifying as a senior-level Meta employee who was   
   let go on Monday, wrote that she, too, had taken maternity leave in the   
   lead-up to her layoff. Several posters elsewhere on Reddit describe   
   rumors of other Meta employees being laid off after returning from a   
   recent parental or medical leave. (Meta did not comment on this.)   
      
   Regardless of what led each Meta employee to wind up in this round of   
   layoffs, it’s clear that the “low performer” moniker struck a nerve   
   among those affected. Meta’s stock has been on the rise, with shares   
   gaining 65% in 2024. Yet, considering that Zuckerberg’s big bet on the   
   metaverse continues to cost his company billions of dollars per quarter,   
   the CEO should maybe consider himself fortunate to have evaded the “low   
   performer” label himself.   
      
   Source:   
      
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)