Bitpanda said no mass layoffs, three weeks before axing one-third of staff(theblock.co)
theblock.co
Bitpanda said no mass layoffs, three weeks before axing one-third of staff
https://www.theblock.co/post/155398/no-mass-layoffs-said-bitpanda-three-weeks-before-axing-third-of-staff
94 comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
> If people invest their lives in your company
I think I may see the problem.
I think I may see the problem.
There's a reality you're living that must be quite different than the rest of the world.
What, you mean our system of corporate capitalism that still mostly requires relocating for a job, and incredibly strongly encourages working long hours to "prove yourself" and "get ahead" and whatnot?
Don't forget the part where medical care for your family is unaffordable unless you have employer provided insurance.
> 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.
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.
> Restricting information to influence their decision making is poisoning that relationship.
They also poison the employee's relationship with the next employer. Once burned, it is a little harder to trust the next employer.
They also poison the employee's relationship with the next employer. Once burned, it is a little harder to trust the next employer.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The better performers who want to leave will leave regardless of when the layoff is communicated.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The company entity will not trust their employees generally. They verify, or use multiple parties to prevent any possible trust needed to perform a task - that's why there's "supervisors" and manager roles.
The employees, on the other hand, is required to trust the company. It's a condition of employment. For example, you are only paid after the work is completed - this requires that the employee trusts the company to make good on the wage. Of course, this is legally mandated - but sometimes, despite legal mandates, unpaid wages exists, esp. when company is in financial trouble.
It's an asymmetrical relationship.
The employees, on the other hand, is required to trust the company. It's a condition of employment. For example, you are only paid after the work is completed - this requires that the employee trusts the company to make good on the wage. Of course, this is legally mandated - but sometimes, despite legal mandates, unpaid wages exists, esp. when company is in financial trouble.
It's an asymmetrical relationship.
I mean trust in a communications sense: the amount that a listener believes your message when you say something. The purpose of communication is, ultimately, to change minds. If your audience has lost all trust in you, then your message will be treated as complete noise, and regardless of whether you say X or Y, it will have zero impact on a listener's belief about X or Y.
If your trusted friend says "I'm in trouble and I need a loan", you probably believe them. If a spam email says the same thing, you probably won't.
Employers and employees are on an equal footing in terms of this type of trust. Whether you're speaking to your senior manager or to your new hire, you need to establish that your words carry factual meaning. Fail repeatedly at that, and you'll end up on a mental spam filter.
When Enzersdorfer-Konrad says "There will not be any kind of massive layoffs within Bitpanda", the impact of that message on employees is proportional to how much trust Enzersdorfer-Konrad, and Bitpanda, have earned. If they have a record of lying and deceiving their employees, then such announcements are complete noise. There's not even any use in uttering them.
Telling such a blatant lie -- or, to be charitable, an overconfident wrong prediction -- costs credibility that has to be earned back the hard way. The next time Enzersdorfer-Konrad says something, even if he really means it this time, it won't carry weight. He'll have to build, or rebuild, a strong record of honesty before people listen to him again.
If your trusted friend says "I'm in trouble and I need a loan", you probably believe them. If a spam email says the same thing, you probably won't.
Employers and employees are on an equal footing in terms of this type of trust. Whether you're speaking to your senior manager or to your new hire, you need to establish that your words carry factual meaning. Fail repeatedly at that, and you'll end up on a mental spam filter.
When Enzersdorfer-Konrad says "There will not be any kind of massive layoffs within Bitpanda", the impact of that message on employees is proportional to how much trust Enzersdorfer-Konrad, and Bitpanda, have earned. If they have a record of lying and deceiving their employees, then such announcements are complete noise. There's not even any use in uttering them.
Telling such a blatant lie -- or, to be charitable, an overconfident wrong prediction -- costs credibility that has to be earned back the hard way. The next time Enzersdorfer-Konrad says something, even if he really means it this time, it won't carry weight. He'll have to build, or rebuild, a strong record of honesty before people listen to him again.
Yeah and they could avoid layoffs if they cut the executive pay down.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
> (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.
> 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.
For a public company, you cannot disclose info like this in a casual interview.
The answer is always "no". You won't do layoff.
Not sure if bitpanda is a public company, but it is surprising people don't understand the basics like this.
The answer is always "no". You won't do layoff.
Not sure if bitpanda is a public company, but it is surprising people don't understand the basics like this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Imposter syndrome when you're told an imposter second-to-second.
It also depends on middle managers identifying the actual low-performers and not marking for removal high performers who they don't like or might take their job in a slimmed down org.
If you're going to do a lay off, your "best performers" will know eventually.
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
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
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).
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).
You can't trust what the company says regardless.
A sudden layoff can happen to anyone.
A sudden layoff can happen to anyone.
OP said he prefers the quick band aid method, not that he doesn’t care.
Yes, lying to people makes them believe things that benefit you more. It also nukes your relationship with them.
Same with failing crypto coins. As soon as they tell you it'll be ok is the moment they're fire saleing
I was in the first wave of a multi-wave lay off recently and after seeing how awful it was for the "survivors" to get RIF'd a couple weeks later, I am glad I was out asap.
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
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.
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.
Yep, if you were around in 2008, you recognize it starting again....
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.
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.
Yep, rode out a layoff with that plan in mind recently. Took a very long vacation and still had a month or two of double pay - April was the first 5 paycheck month of my life, so that was cool. But on the whole it's pretty stressful waiting to get laid off, can't say I'd recommend it, though in my case it worked out pretty well.
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?
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.
On the context of this one article, what do you expect a company can communicate about layoffs?
[deleted]
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.
[deleted]
If I was in charge I would deflect and talk about how strong fundamentals were etc
So you're saying, in the scenario where someone asks directly "will this company lay anyone off," you'd rather the company deflect the question and not answer it than just say "no?"
I really can't imagine why anyone would think that's a better look. If someone dodges a question, it's safe to assume that the truthful answer would look bad for them. That's WHY people dodge questions.
I really can't imagine why anyone would think that's a better look. If someone dodges a question, it's safe to assume that the truthful answer would look bad for them. That's WHY people dodge questions.
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.
There have been times in my life when that advice was 100% true, but, not every time.
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.
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.
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.
That feels to me like a pretty big layoff, not just a headline trying to make a number sound big.
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”.
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”.
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!"
Part2: the empire strikes back?
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.
They did not really have anyone good to manage their finances.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Statements without any binding commitment mean nothing. Everyone should understand that.
Related:
Crypto firm Bitpanda lays off around 20% of its people - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31867839 - June 2022 (117 comments)
Crypto firm Bitpanda lays off around 20% of its people - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31867839 - June 2022 (117 comments)
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.
Agreed. Just looking at that picture on their site if I was considering a job would end it for me.
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odXw8_DJkaA
it's becoming extremely c r i n g e.
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.
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.
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.
You say there's gonna be a layoff, then you don't get to choose who leaves. They start to choose for themselves. You lose control.
The core business model of cryptocurrency companies is deceiving their customers, so why shouldn't they also deceive their employees too?
> 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.
If they knew of the layoffs and lied Bitpanda must be punished for it. Many employees may have made decisions based on that lie.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
A lot happened in those three weeks. Bitcoin dropped by a third and at least a few coins collapsed.
This is normal, management just got the news that there is no more money.
So always get the direct email of all your coworkers so you can reach them independently of your boss. Firing has a desired second-effect as destruction of evidence.
When all three founders wear turtlenecks on PR photos, you know there’s something amiss…
[deleted]
'promises only bind those who believe in them'. Jacques Chirac
[deleted]
Sad, Bitpanda is one of the best in Europe.
They do that to spread the rumor
Managers will tell you not to worry about job security, right up until the day you get a meeting invite from HR.
(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?