[HN Gopher] Bitpanda said no mass layoffs, three weeks before ax...
___________________________________________________________________
Bitpanda said no mass layoffs, three weeks before axing one-third
of staff
Author : emirb
Score : 98 points
Date : 2022-07-04 17:23 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theblock.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theblock.co)
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| That photo of the founders(?) displays maximum turtle neck. Is
| that because of some Jobsian influence or is it an esoteric
| coffee house theme? Either way, it would have got my spidey-sense
| tingling.
| colesantiago wrote:
| it's becoming extremely c r i n g e.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Maybe they just like to feel like they're being strangled by a
| really weak guy, all day.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odXw8_DJkaA
| miked85 wrote:
| Agreed. Just looking at that picture on their site if I was
| considering a job would end it for me.
| [deleted]
| DonHopkins wrote:
| The core business model of cryptocurrency companies is deceiving
| their customers, so why shouldn't they also deceive their
| employees too?
| Weatherweathe wrote:
| Completely unrelated to this new, but I remember interviewing
| with them 3 years ago and had my worst interview ever. There was
| 2 interviewers, one lady from HR and one guy from engineering
| (with a hard to understand english). For some reason they thought
| it was a good idea to ask about concurrency on PHP and right
| after what were my weakness. Looking back I think I was very
| lucky to not make it throught.
| mathverse wrote:
| Ehm they were not really careful with spending money. They had
| their own barista, cool startup offices and overpaid a lot for
| people with meh experience.
|
| They did not really have anyone good to manage their finances.
| jcadam wrote:
| Managers will tell you not to worry about job security, right up
| until the day you get a meeting invite from HR.
| faangiq wrote:
| 999900000999 wrote:
| Every single company is guaranteed to try and assure employees
| the company's doing okay.
|
| Think about it for a second, regardless of if your employer
| intends to do layoffs or not, the moment people fear for their
| jobs, they'll spend more time looking for work.
|
| I prefer the quick rip the Band-Aid off lay off, give me a bit of
| severance, let me shake the hands of upper management and we can
| all move on for our lives
| cyanydeez wrote:
| Same with failing crypto coins. As soon as they tell you it'll
| be ok is the moment they're fire saleing
| handsclean wrote:
| Yes, lying to people makes them believe things that benefit you
| more. It also nukes your relationship with them.
| jackmott wrote:
| capableweb wrote:
| It's cool that you can just survive on getting fired, with zero
| repercussions in other parts of your life and all that. But
| that's not the situation for many others, who have to plan a
| good chunk of their (at least immediate) future based around
| other people in their life outside of work.
|
| So if a company says "Just so everyone know, the entire market
| is experience a tough time, and so are we, so right now we're
| evaluating our options, don't do anything drastic", people can
| plan around that. But if the company says "Don't worry about
| what's happening around you, we're super fine and would never
| do layoffs", people start to plan around that.
|
| It's a bit silly, and people probably shouldn't trust
| management/the company to have their best interest at heart,
| but as humans we do trust others (probably more than we
| should).
| dymk wrote:
| OP said he prefers the quick band aid method, not that he
| doesn't care.
| szundi wrote:
| This is normal, management just got the news that there is no
| more money.
| [deleted]
| eschneider wrote:
| From a purely practical perspective, it's rarely useful to ask
| about layoffs. You're unlikely to get an honest answer, and even
| if you were, how much trust can you put in it? All you do is
| signal that you're someone who "lacks commitment."
|
| You just have to keep your eyes open all the time, make a
| judgement about how much sense things make, and make your own
| decisions on when things seem off.
| hourago wrote:
| > Bitpanda's chief product officer, Lukas Enzersdorfer-Konrad,
| told employees via a Slack message there would be no mass
| layoffs, weeks before the company cut its workforce by a third.
|
| If they knew of the layoffs and lied Bitpanda must be punished
| for it. Many employees may have made decisions based on that lie.
| zorpner wrote:
| Individuals authorized to speak for companies who state these
| lies need to personally liable. If someone at the company lied
| to them to get them to say it, they should be able go after
| them, like a chain of stolen goods.
|
| Permitting spokespeople to lie is not only toxic, but
| explicitly removes the equality of information necessary to a
| functioning free market. It's in everyone's interest to punish
| it.
| sergers wrote:
| not sure about specific labor laws in your area, but even if
| they knew for a fact there would be layoffs, and told employees
| otherwise, i dont think thats punishable (may be
| wrong/unethical, but legally i dont think they did anything
| wrong).
|
| being at a company for 16 years, i have learned:
|
| 1)everything is status quo, until one day it isnt.
|
| 2)there will be no changes, till there is change one day.
|
| 3)there will be no layoffs, until one day there is...
|
| alot of times the people working above you directly dont
| know/are aware of pending doom.
|
| it is possible at the time the CPO made that statement, it
| could have been true at the time or that they were aware of
| that there would be no layoffs.
| [deleted]
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| They've already covered this, lie or not by stating AT THE TIME
| the statement was made it was believed to be true, with a lay-
| off decision only made a few days before it was executed.
| treis wrote:
| A lot happened in those three weeks. Bitcoin dropped by a third
| and at least a few coins collapsed.
| Barrera wrote:
| Those turtlenecks.
|
| Anyway, the article mentions:
|
| > He [chief product officer] said the company was "very well
| funded" with no liquidity problems. While he noted that its 2022
| financial results were "below budget," he said that this had been
| caused by macroeconomic conditions, including a supply crisis and
| the Ukraine conflict. The executive urged employees to focus on
| product and tech infrastructure improvements in preparation for
| the "next bull run."
|
| This is exactly the same line given by every single business.
| Even the White House does it. This is due to Ukraine, supply
| shock, and macroeconomic factors. As if this didn't matter. As if
| that meant that whatever is happening can be ignored. Don't
| worry, nothing to see here. It's just special, highly unusual
| circumstances.
|
| Except it does matter. No matter how well you wear the turtleneck
| eventually reality matters. Mean-reversions from bubbles matter.
| They are inevitable and they are painful. It's never "contained,"
| no matter how much leadership wants you to believe it. Gear up.
| rvz wrote:
| Reminds me of the Theranos CEO, Elizabeth Holmes using the same
| old trick.
|
| Startups that have CEOs with this infatuation with the Steve
| Jobs turtle neck and jeans look are essentially playing the
| scammer and are taking part in the delusion or attempting to
| hypnotise VCs by cargo-culting and re-creating his dark reality
| distortion spells.
| killingtime74 wrote:
| If your company so as mentions layoffs, even (especially?) if
| they deny it, they are coming. Just like a Pip, if it gets
| mentioned, start looking for another job
| imglorp wrote:
| Bailing early sacrifices some benefits in exchange for you
| deciding the timing.
|
| If you are laid off in much of the US anyway, you are eligible
| for unemployment in case that's needed. That might help someone
| with less assets in a protracted dry spell.
|
| Also very common, you give up severance pay if you quit. If you
| can afford some timing risk, IMO it's best to have your scope
| up and be looking just in case, then wait until pushed. The
| severance will basically be a bonus if you're rehired quickly
| since you should have some leads lined up.
| gnicholas wrote:
| What if the company doesn't bring it up, but says there won't
| be a layoff in response to a direct question (at an employee
| town hall, for example)? It seems like that's how a lot of
| these rumors get started.
| killingtime74 wrote:
| If I was in charge I would deflect and talk about how strong
| fundamentals were etc
| [deleted]
| DonHopkins wrote:
| When the senior management all suddenly disappear at once,
| because they're under gag order and not allowed to talk about
| the company's future with anyone, that's a sign of things to
| come.
| chrononaut wrote:
| That doesn't make much sense to me. If there is market turmoil,
| are you saying the best strategy for a company is to not
| communicate anything no matter the company and industry?
| marcosdumay wrote:
| On the context of this one article, what do you expect a
| company can communicate about layoffs?
| lumost wrote:
| The best strategy is to talk through the business
| performance, and the business goals. When businesses miss
| goals, or they clam up on the underlying fundamentals - it
| generally means that trouble is brewing. Sometimes this is
| done on "tenuous" justifications, I once worked at a startup
| that insisted that employees could not have access to revenue
| data or other business metrics if they were to go public. Of
| course, the reality was that the business wanted to hide how
| deeply underwater everyones options were - as well as how far
| off the growth projections were from business reality.
| bink wrote:
| I don't think one signal alone is sufficient to make that
| determination. Lots of companies try to comfort employees
| during downturns.
|
| In my experience before you see mass layoffs you'll also see
| some of the following: hiring freezes, benefit cutbacks, travel
| bans, infrastructure cost cutting, office closures, revamps to
| employee evaluation processes, etc. Without at least some other
| factors I wouldn't assume a company is considering layoffs just
| because they use the word.
| jcadam wrote:
| Yep, if you were around in 2008, you recognize it starting
| again....
| softwaredoug wrote:
| Counterpoint: depending on the company stay around if you're
| somewhat risk tolerant. It might not be in a death spiral and
| you'll learn a lot of the company needs to hard pivot in new
| directions. You'll have a bigger say in the smaller company
| trying to find that direction.
| randrews wrote:
| As much as I want to agree with you, and as much as I usually
| go by that rule myself... The place I work at now said, in
| March 2020, that they weren't going to do any layoffs. And,
| they haven't. And are now making more money than they were in
| 2019, and actively looking for more people, so, I doubt any are
| coming.
|
| There have been times in my life when that advice was 100%
| true, but, not every time.
| dang wrote:
| Related:
|
| _Crypto firm Bitpanda lays off around 20% of its people_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31867839 - June 2022 (117
| comments)
| randrews wrote:
| For anyone like me wondering how many 1/3 is, they apparently
| reduced their workforce to 730 people, meaning they laid off 365
| (or thereabouts).
|
| That feels to me like a pretty big layoff, not just a headline
| trying to make a number sound big.
| laserlight wrote:
| Statements without any binding commitment mean nothing. Everyone
| should understand that.
| possiblelion wrote:
| Sad, Bitpanda is one of the best in Europe.
| gnicholas wrote:
| What are the appropriate or possible responses to being publicly
| asked if you're going to do a layoff, in the case that:
|
| (1) you are definitely going to do a layoff
|
| (2) you have not yet decided but are considering it
|
| (3) you are definitely not doing a layoff
|
| In the past, HNers have mentioned that if you admit you're going
| to lay people off, then your best performers will leave. Is that
| true? If so, what should companies say in order to be truthful
| and to help keep the company from falling apart?
|
| Relatedly, how does a company credibly promise not to do layoffs,
| to put people's minds at ease?
| woodruffw wrote:
| You can do what everyone else has always done: simply not
| comment. It's always an option.
| jlg23 wrote:
| Except for that silence speaks loudly in some circumstances.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| > (3) you are definitely not doing a layoff
|
| > Relatedly, how does a company credibly promise not to do
| layoffs, to put people's minds at ease?
|
| In both cases: A hard, legally binding commitment.
|
| That said, a company that promised employees no layoffs should
| not be able to do layoffs and/or be subject to fraud charges.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| IME it's not that top performers leave with any pre-
| announcment, but after layoffs, IF they think their mid-to-
| longer-term incentives (options, profit sharing, raises, etc)
| will be cut dramatically. The biggest immediate impact is that
| productivity goes to negative eleven from the time the first
| person learns about upcoming lay-offs until well after the act
| FOR EVERYONE.
|
| Company credibility is shot when you do any lay-offs, but
| individual credibilty can survive one round. There is no way to
| maintain faith and trust in the organization AND do lay-offs,
| so you should give no notice until preferably after the fact.
| jackmott wrote:
| Lerc wrote:
| > if you admit you're going to lay people off, then your best
| performers will leave
|
| You are not simply entitled to your best performers. You are in
| a relationship where they provide their services for money.
| Staff are not property.
|
| Restricting information to influence their decision making is
| poisoning that relationship.
| onion2k wrote:
| _In the past, HNers have mentioned that if you admit you 're
| going to lay people off, then your best performers will leave.
| Is that true?_
|
| Any kind of layoffs will cause your best performers to leave
| regardless of whether you tell people ahead of time. It's a
| strong signal that the company is in survival mode instead of
| growth mode, which at least means raises and bonuses are in
| doubt and at worst means the company is going under soon. It's
| better to accept that you're going to lose more people than you
| plan for and deal with the fallout as best you can.
| capableweb wrote:
| Another way of going through it, is to share that you might
| have to do layoffs, watch as people leave and enough people
| might leave so you don't have to do layoffs in the end. If
| enough people don't leave, go ahead with layoff. It's both
| transparent and honest, no lies required.
| dougSF70 wrote:
| Except, weaker performers will stick around for severance
| and top performers will leave. If sufficient above average
| performers leave to avoid a layoff you are left with a
| weaker team. In this instance company doesnt get to chose,
| which it might want to. Best idea is not to provide
| reassurance if you cant back it up. In which case, say
| nothing.
| capableweb wrote:
| If you know you're gonna do layoffs, say that it's being
| considered, and then do the layoffs.
|
| If it's possible you'll do layoffs, says it's possible that
| you'll do layoffs, figure out what you wanna do, then do that.
|
| If you know you're not gonna do layoffs, say you know you're
| not gonna do layoffs, and then don't do layoffs.
|
| If people will leave because you say there will be layoffs,
| they would leave even faster if you didn't say you'll do
| layoffs but then do it anyway.
| bb88 wrote:
| It's one thing to say, you're struggling, but you think you
| can make it without layoffs. Or another thing to say your
| financial models say for the next 90 days you're okay at the
| moment. Or you're trying to shift money around, or trying to
| increase revenue, or to say you're looking for funding...
|
| If people invest their lives in your company (relocating,
| working overtime, etc), they deserve the honest truth about
| what's happening. Particularly in a world where there's a
| high demand for tech workers.
| erichocean wrote:
| > _If people invest their lives in your company_
|
| I think I may see the problem.
| willcipriano wrote:
| Flip the situation around so you can emphasize more easily.
|
| Let's say your employee walks up and they tell you that "my
| life situation is uncertain going forward, my ability to
| deliver on my end of this bargain may be limited and outside of
| my control."
|
| On the other hand you have the resume of someone you can hire,
| they are willing to agree to a contract where they will deliver
| more productivity than the previous employee, problem is you
| can only employ one of them.
|
| If feeding your family depended on the productivity of the
| person in that role, who do you go with?
| bombcar wrote:
| Probably being open from the beginning is the way to go, but if
| your top performers are going to leave because they hear
| layoffs are coming, they will still leave _after_ layoffs have
| arrived. Most likely won 't.
| gnicholas wrote:
| So is this part of the reason why Zuck would have framed FB's
| impending actions as being focused on low-performers? That
| way, people who believe themselves to be high-performers
| wouldn't bail.
| jcadam wrote:
| Problem: Imposter syndrome.
|
| The overlap between people who think very highly of
| themselves and your top performers may not be 100%. It's
| probably quite a bit less.
| danaris wrote:
| If you're doing layoffs, then generally one of three things is
| true:
|
| 1) The company is in bad shape, and the layoff is a Hail Mary
| play to try and delay the inevitable long enough for a miracle
| to happen
|
| 2) The company is in fine shape, but for whatever reason, has
| done an honest self-assessment and determined that they've got
| more people working there than are necessary to continue
| operating (and, if they're really being both honest and
| thorough, has done at least _some_ due diligence to identify
| the genuine low performers)
|
| 3) The company is in fine shape, but the higher-ups and/or
| shareholders think they should be getting more money, so
| they're cutting costs and pocketing the difference
|
| Two of those three are excellent cause to leave, whether or not
| the layoffs are announced ahead of time. Many cases of #2 are
| also cause to leave, when they do _not_ do the appropriate due
| diligence and lay people off indiscriminately or according to
| nepotism /who plays golf with the right people.
|
| If your best people will leave upon finding out that you're
| laying people off, then they will probably leave whether or not
| you announce it ahead of time like decent people--the only
| question is _when_.
|
| So basically, you're compromising on honesty and basic decency
| in order to _maybe_ buy yourself a few more months.
| Xylakant wrote:
| There's also 4) the company is overall not in a good shape,
| but some parts are and others not. Closing down the loss-
| generating chunks and shrinking to concentrate on the actual
| profitable sectors can be a successful way out.
| Jistern wrote:
| Good point! I hadn't thought of that.
| danaris wrote:
| That's fair; I think it's similar enough to my #2 that my
| points related to that still largely apply.
| r053bud wrote:
| I will always want honesty from the company I work for. If they
| pull something like this, trust is completely lost and I'll be
| looking elsewhere. If I were in charge, I'd admit our mistakes
| (we over hired, didn't foresee economic conditions, invested in
| the wrong areas) which caused the need for layoffs. I'd never
| tell my employees that there would be no layoffs unless I was
| 100% certain of it.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| Looking for honesty from a company is kind of silly when you
| think about it... it's a pathological, amoral entity with a
| single, well-defined legal purpose, afforded some notion of
| human rights. Executives are legally obligated to serve it.
| They can provide honest analysis after the fact but early
| notice is a mistake, even if it means lying to you.
| jenny91 wrote:
| There are plenty of societies where the people hold
| companies up to standards other than just maximal
| exploitation for shareholder value. It doesn't have to be
| that way.
| jbay808 wrote:
| Trust, which is instrumentally valuable, is the wage earned
| by honesty. Even a pathological, amoral entity will find
| value in being honest, unless they assign no value to being
| trusted.
| julienfr112 wrote:
| 'promises only bind those who believe in them'. Jacques Chirac
| duxup wrote:
| I have worked at a place where the HR manager sent out an email
| "Why it's a great time to be working at X Part 1".
|
| We laid off 20% of the staff and a few days later came "Why it's
| a great time to be working at X Part 2".
| gralx wrote:
| The darkest Sesame Street skit I ever saw had a muppet jumping
| up and down on a manhole cover, gleefully repeating "99! 99!
| 99! ...". A second muppet shows up wondering what it's all
| about, and the first muppet concedes his spot. The second jumps
| up once, saying "Ninety---", the manhole cover slips out of
| place, and the muppet falls to its doom. The first resumes his
| jumping: "100! 100! 100!"
| cwilkes wrote:
| Part2: the empire strikes back?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-04 23:01 UTC)