MSFT manager of 25+ person team here with no actual heads up on this. The writing has been on the wall for months though from internal comms so this should come as a surprise to no one.<p>No one on my team has any information about this beyond the Satya email, so this is either a "no news is good news" situation (assuming you don't actually want to be laid off), or a poorly executed process. I'm hoping for the former for the sake of my team.
I tried a few cards of CorpSpeak Bingo on this (<a href="https://1fish2.github.io/buzzword-bingo/corp-bingo.html" rel="nofollow">https://1fish2.github.io/buzzword-bingo/corp-bingo.html</a>)<p>One of my cards was SO CLOSE, but he needed to <i>galvanize</i> some.<p>My rightmost column had Leadership, Accelerate, Innovative, and Challenge. Missing Galvanize.
While there is no good way to do a mass-layoff, I don't particularly like the way this was communicated. There's a lot of flowery language and the fact that there will be massive layoffs is only said in passing in the third paragraph.<p>This will never be good news, obviously, but please communicate the important facts clearly.
> When I think about this moment in time, the start of 2023, it’s showtime – for our industry and for Microsoft.<p>He could have left that part out.
Satya is appointed by shareholders, not by employees. Employees can't fire Satya.<p>And while employees might give him a hard time for this, shareholders can definitely give him a harder time if they see a (potential) decline in dividend. So cutting cost to keep dividends steady with a decline in profitability and revenue is the easiest fight for him.<p>While it sucks, when working for a large tech company which is publicly traded like Microsoft antics like this should be no surprise to anyone.
Is Microsoft laying off executives too? Or will this only affect the rank and file?<p>IME, if the company does not let go of executives, they are just tagging along with their peer companies on the layoff train. If they do make cuts at the VP/SVP level then the company really does have margin/profitability issues.
There was a sentiment in an earlier discussion [0] that this is "a war on tech wages" but for years the argument was that tech will make many other jobs obsolete (which would justify wage growth for tech employees).<p>Remember, e.g., the Jack Ma era and his proclamations that we should all get into arts because tech will take care of the rest?<p>Is the current round of layoffs an admission that the "software will eat the world" scenario will not happen or an indication that it can be done with even fewer tech employees?<p>[0] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34417750" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34417750</a>
Families will get torn apart, people with health issues will be on their own, immigrants will get booted.<p>C-suite will get a raise from the stock price bump.<p>Congrats on our system.
They're spreading it out over the full year. Interesting that they would announce it up front like this?<p>What does this do to morale and retention?
The best explanation I've read so far, layoffs are more a sign of "social contagion" and "copycat " behavior rather than based on sound economic reasons.<p><a href="https://news.stanford.edu/2022/12/05/explains-recent-tech-layoffs-worried/" rel="nofollow">https://news.stanford.edu/2022/12/05/explains-recent-tech-la...</a>
Interview with Microsoft’s CEO was posted by WSJ within past 24-hours that includes questions about if workers should be concerned about AI taking their jobs. My understanding was he expected companies to retrain their workforce to leverage AI. I would be super curious to hear his reasoning for why Microsoft did not take his own advice.<p>Satya Nadella: Microsoft's Products Will Soon Access Open AI Tools Like ChatGPT | WSJ - YouTube<p><a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UNbyT7wPwk4">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UNbyT7wPwk4</a>
<i>>U.S.-benefit-eligible employees will receive a variety of benefits, including above-market severance pay, continuing healthcare coverage for six months, continued vesting of stock awards for six months, career transition services, and 60 days’ notice prior to termination, regardless of whether such notice is legally required.</i><p>Wow, that way way, better than what we get by law in my EU country when you're laid off (just unemployment benefits). Looks like big tech in the US has loads of perks.
Seems predictable that this announcement would come right after switching to unlimited PTO. I would imagine this reduces the money that the company plans to pay out by quite a bit if they used to pay outgoing employees for unused PTO. Maybe I'm being unnecessarily cynical, though.
It was only in May last year that Mr Nadella announced a pay rise for MS staff in order to stay competitive i.e. keep them from being poached by Meta etc.<p><a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/16/microsoft-ceo-satya-nadella-tells-employees-pay-increases-coming.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/16/microsoft-ceo-satya-nadella-...</a>
Past discussion (21 hours ago): Microsoft to lay off 11k employees, <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34417750" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34417750</a>
All the news is saying that its a mild recession but layoffs is a longer term solution in cost reduction. Basically Big Tech isn't optimistic about the industry for at least 2023. Is the recession going to be worse than we expect?
> Could there be a tech recession? Yes. Was there a bubble in valuations? Absolutely. Did Meta overhire? Probably.<p>I'm glad we agree<p>> But is that why they are laying people off? Of course not. Meta has plenty of money. These companies are all making money.<p>How does this follow any logic at all. He does not even dispute that overhiring took place.
Should companies continue with a stupid hiring frenzy until they run out of money? This is the logical implication.<p>> They are doing it because other companies are doing it.<p>How is this explanation better than any other? This is such a strong claim and he offers ZERO evidence for it. And gross overgeneralizations like "oh, there are cases in which..." are argumental rubbish.
This infuriates me because this is bad science and plainly opinionated.