Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Yahoo Called Its Layoffs a "Remix." Don't Do That.

Posted by samzenpus on from the what-to-do-and-what-not-to-do dept.

Nerval's Lobster writes: Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer, in a conference call with reporters and analysts, referred to the net layoffs of 1,100 employees in the first quarter of 2015 as part of a 'remixing' of the company. A 'remix' is a term most often applied to songs, although it's also appropriate to use in the context of photographs, films, and artwork. CEOs rarely use it to describe something as momentous as a major enterprise's transition, especially if said transition involves layoffs of longtime employees, because it could potentially appear flippant to observers. If you run your own shop (no matter how large), it always pays to choose words as carefully as possible when referring to anything that affects your employees' lives and careers. Despite a renewed focus on mobile and an influx of skilled developers and engineers, Yahoo still struggles to define its place on the modern tech scene; that struggle is no more evident than in the company's most recent quarterly results, which included rising costs, reduced net income, and layoffs.

12 of 194 comments (clear)

  1. It's Just a Euphemism... by Shoten · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's just a euphemism. I remember working for a company that started embracing offshoring, which they called "right-shoring." Layoffs were called "right-sizing." And the executives were called "cunts." Amazing how just a little "word-smithing" can make things sound better than they really are, huh?

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    1. Re:It's Just a Euphemism... by Scutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It never ceases to amaze me the insensitivity with which employers treat the life-changing decisions they make regarding their employees. I get that it's a business decision and that sometimes you have to make the hard call, but that doesn't mean you have to be a douchebag about it. I've seen the gamut, from firing people via text message to inviting them to a "breakfast meeting" and having security box up their stuff while they're in the meeting room (and not giving them breakfast, either).

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    2. Re:It's Just a Euphemism... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've been laid off once, but fortunately, it was handled extremely well. The CEO of the company (it was fairly small), called us to a meeting where he sat with us in a room and explained the situation and why it was being done, answering any questions we had afterwards. It's hard to get mad at someone when they're completely transparent about the whole thing, and I had a lot of respect for both him and the company for handling it that way. It still sucked, but it sucked in a way that didn't leave a bitter taste in your mouth.

      Note: he didn't use any euphemisms to describe what was happening.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    3. Re:It's Just a Euphemism... by mjwx · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's just a euphemism. I remember working for a company that started embracing offshoring, which they called "right-shoring." Layoffs were called "right-sizing." And the executives were called "cunts." Amazing how just a little "word-smithing" can make things sound better than they really are, huh?

      Yes, but here "remix" may actually be the right word for it.

      When you "remix" a song, you take a song that was good on its own merits, fuck with the tempo, add some annoying bleeps, warbles, gaps and/or voiceovers which completely ruins a song.

      So when you "remix" a company, you get rid of all the engineers and functional people whilst keeping the designers and giving the upper management a nice fat bonus which completely ruins a company

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  2. Re:Ugh by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder if she's still lobbying for more H1B's to fill all those piles of unfilled jobs that Yahoo supposedly has.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  3. What's next, hiring Carly? by sirwired · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder what is coming next, hiring good 'ol Carly Fiorina as "Chief Vision Officer" or something like that? I'm sure that'd improve morale greatly. That worked out so well for HP. (Not that their subsequent two CEO's were much of an improvement...)

    Where do CEO's learn to talk like this? Weren't they ever front-line employees who rolled their eyes at the exec-speak? (Judging from the breathless and sycophantic comments I see posted on my company's intranet to every word from our Fearless Leaders, I'd say no.)

    1. Re:What's next, hiring Carly? by tnk1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People at that level are advised by groups who are retained to aid with a particular sort of image or messaging. When your words to your staff can affect an entire company's stock price, and thus, affect the company at a fundamental level, you learn quickly to never talk off script.

      To be fair, saying the wrong thing and torpedoing a company's stock price can negatively affect not only the bottom line, but it also opens an otherwise good company up for "activist investors" or raiders who might be worse for your company in the long term than having to adhere to an inhuman script filled with euphemisms. A company in the hands of raiders ends up becoming a company split up or sold at a fire sale. That would mean the loss of *all* employees.

      Of course, there is a line where that can go from prudence to moral cowardice or even indifference. It is not always clear where that line really is. Few who have been laid off are really able to appreciate the bigger picture, given their current catastrophe.

      I do know of one CEO of a small company who personally called everyone he laid off down to a meeting, and explained the situation while in tears. I'm sure it made an impression on them, but in the end, they were all still out of a job. I can't imagine being someone in charge of a bigger company who might have to do that for hundreds of people for multiple layoffs. Admittedly, I also have trouble believing that they could relate to hundreds of people under them as individuals.

      If you work for a company over around 100 or so people, and you are an "individual contributor", you can pretty much expect that you will start having upper management become remote unless they make an increasing effort. Humans in general can only maintain only a certain number of relationships realistically, and a CEO probably has just as many outside the company as in it. Don't go to work for a big company and expect a personal touch from anyone but your manager or possibly their manager. They suffer from human limitations as much as anyone. You're going to be treated as a number which only works if the management is run by someone like The Count, who rather fancies numbers.

  4. CEOs and the truth by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Informative

    CEOs like to use special language because they are all sociopaths and have trouble with the truth.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:CEOs and the truth by gweihir · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This, incidentally, is the reason there are so few woman CEOs: The sociopathy is a job _requirement_ and there are fewer female sociopaths. That those are not in any way inferior in pathology though, is amply demonstrated by Meyers, Ginny and Fiorina. They can lie, cheat, steal and kill companies with the best of them. It also shows nicely that calling for more women in CEO positions is entirely bogus: It will just get those sociopaths a booster.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  5. more names by slashmydots · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have some suggestions for additional terminology. An unprofitable quarter (so in other words, all of them) could just be called "dippin'" Then accidentally serving up crytowall malware through their ad network could be "trippin'" and buying out a company that they think is hot and turns out to be a complete nosedive could be called...um...not really sure on that one but Marissa Mayer is a freaking idiot. Maybe they could call it that. Call it a "Marissa Mayer" when someone royally screws up and loses a ton of money.

  6. Re:I don't see the big deal by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Being laid off sucks. You may well be relatively confident that you have a new job in the works, but all the capital you might have gained in that company is over, save for perhaps, some references you can get if you didn't piss off your managers or co-workers and maybe some non-worthless options.

    It also can come at inopportune times for your financial situation. It is a pain in the ass to get a loan for a new house when you haven't been in a new job for very long, and that's even when you chose to move jobs for a bigger paycheck, and so should be able to be more capable, rather than less capable of paying the bills.

    More to the point, despite it being just "business", you wonder how you ended up on the selection list. Even if you're relatively sure that it wasn't merit-based retention, layoff time is when managers remove people who they couldn't justify outright firing, but are more than happy to throw to the wolves when the reaper requests his quota.

    And of course, finally, while there may be many jobs out there on average, it is very possible that you're too expensive or too old, or your skills were too specific to get you a comparable position elsewhere. And it is known you were laid off and need a new job, there is a real chance you'll get lowballed. You can be up shit creek if that happens and you have a family to support who were relying on every last dime you made to support them.

    tl;dr Having more job opportunities available only makes being laid off suck slightly less. If you had wanted a new job, you'd have gone and gotten one yourself.

  7. She's not all bad... by Kylon99 · · Score: 4, Informative

    To her credit, when the employees complained about them being stack ranked at a general meeting (i.e. they vote who is the worse in every team and then fire them), she categorically denied it was stack ranking with no explanations and then proceeded to read a children's book to everyone. That showed a lot of respect to...

    No wait...
    http://www.businessinsider.com...