I am truly amazed at the mythology of "high performers" as separate from the org. Teams can be high performing, but high performing individuals are often built by the environment.
Yet, in the US we have this almost Stakhanovite mythology where a single worker can pull an entire organization.
I have worked with individuals who had been pariahs in the previous org (got that info over beers with the individual) but were rockstars in our org. Also with so-called high-fliers from other teams/companies who just cratered when they joined our group.
Personally I think cutting 10% pay is preferable because a) the work doesn't go away - if 10% are let go, I'll probably end up doing 10%+ more work. b) it's a commitment by the organization and that shows they care enough to not unilaterally make a decision.
> Teams can be high performing, but high performing individuals are often built by the environment.
This is a common bias I experience in American corporate culture and it drives me nuts. Viewing things at the individual level makes it really difficult to understand and cultivate productivity in a sustainable way.
Often I find it more useful to look at productivity at the team level. It tends to have more explanatory power than at the individual level because it gets more into psychological safety, communication, attributes that are crucial for high performing teams but are difficult to suss out if you are just focused on individuals. Like you, I have seen way too many smart people stuck in situations where their skills and talents were completely underutilized. Vice versa there's way too many politically adept but inept individuals out there who have the companies that employ them in a stranglehold. All they do is empty these companies of resources, time and money while bringing nothing of value in return.
Amusingly I was also quite unaware of this historical footnote until I listened to this song [1] from a Putamayo album that mentioned Stakhanovism and had to look it up.
Yet, in the US we have this almost Stakhanovite mythology where a single worker can pull an entire organization.
I have worked with individuals who had been pariahs in the previous org (got that info over beers with the individual) but were rockstars in our org. Also with so-called high-fliers from other teams/companies who just cratered when they joined our group.
Personally I think cutting 10% pay is preferable because a) the work doesn't go away - if 10% are let go, I'll probably end up doing 10%+ more work. b) it's a commitment by the organization and that shows they care enough to not unilaterally make a decision.