Funny, probably have no communication between these departments either, the people hiring them think they are excellent and then the ones firing them don't.
But the problem never gets solved because the hiring people just go "I don't know at all why this person got laid off, looks great on paper! Let's re-hire them."
It's not a lot of money they get, it's probably just to survive. Without kids and a career women have a much better life. Women with kids really have to work hard, women knows this by now.
What happens when renters go and shame landlords for getting kicked out for not paying rent and such? Most people leave reviews when they are angry, not when they are satisfied.
Landlords aren't usually liked, accepted perhaps but not liked. Sometimes they have to make tough decisions and this can unfortunately make people angry.
I get it for a hotel, but a landlord isn't getting paid to work with customer service, they simply rent it the place. So, if they can't have the ability to respond about the person slamming them won't that cause issues? It has to be a two-way street, otherwise it will push prices up so they can deal with the additional admin and work around making everyone happy.
They do deserve their privacy as well, most landlords are not a company so publicly slamming their name seems like something that they shouldn't have to deal with. They deserve anonymity. If this happens to a landlord once, they may not rent again.
Now, I'm not against it for situations that are absolutely horrendous but like another commenter pointed out, if they are really that bad you will notice it when you meet them the first time and they show you the property.
But rating people, i.e. landlords, is not the same as rating a company.
If it is a constant issue where dedicated employees feel burnt out, then of course it is his business. I don't think the solution is to find less engaged people to work. It's not just about the employees, it is also about the general work and the value the team will bring. Maybe hiring low effort people will solve the problem, but then again so will no employees at all as well I suppose.
As a manager, you should work towards keeping people engaged, doing good work, while making sure they don't burn out.
If people are on the brink of burn out, it's not a "it's their own fault for caring about their work." It's because they're trying to do their actual jobs and care enough about the results.
I find this trend where we're just blaming people that burn out for caring about the work they do interesting, what's the end result? Just a bunch of people playing politics and laying around waiting for the day to end?
I rather work with someone that cares and does a good job but just needs a break, give them support so they can do their jobs, rather than force them to quit 'because they're a pain in the ass' for giving a shit.
If somebody cares about their job more than themselves, that’s not a good thing either. If the business can get results with people who don’t require constant discussion of and attention to burnout, why wouldn’t they take that alternative?
A manager can’t keep people engaged. A manager can create an environment where a person can choose to be engaged, but it’s not something the manager can conjure up.
Sure it’s great for a company to create an environment that lets people care about their work and be 100% happy with their work-life-balance, but to say that it’s solely the employer’s responsibility is passing the buck IMO.
Personally, I look out for my well-being and I know nobody else will care about that as much as I do. I’m not going to blame my employer for burning me out, I’m going to accept some of the responsibility as well because I’m the one who suffers most.
It's hardly that black and white. If people are burnt out there is a reason for it, blaming them won't make the problem go away.
I've seen this in a few where there is certainly an environmental issue but it's easier to blame the individual. Removing them never helped and it just tears in a lot of places, especially the ones that was held up by the employee itself. Usually the employee is quite clear about these areas as well.
You have to remember that in these cases, the person feeling burnt out is taking on too much to keep the organization going. The issue isn't the person but the expectation and workload. I've seen employees try to make it work so they can have some semblance of work life balance.
With regards to your first comment there, some organizations don't realize the work that they are putting on to one person. I've heard comments like "why don't they just stop caring about the work?" for their own organization. You think founders and managers want people to stop caring about the work? No. They say it to put blame elsewhere and then know that the work will keep going like always. If it stops, they'll get pissed off and argue that the employee isn't doing their job.
It's great that you are looking out for yourself, but people being put in these situations shouldn't get blamed. They literally just care about the work, and usually they do amazingly. Without these people then I don't think most organizations would have gotten as far as they have.
I do agree with you though, that best is to make sure you don't put yourself in this kind of situation.
However, the most talented and driven people do care a lot about the work they do, they put a lot of pride in it. In this case it's important to put guardrails in place and I think many are doing this right now.
You can do more with less. The more you introduce the more complicated it will be. Every person will introduce a new dynamic. Focus on creating small, strong and resistant teams instead.
How are you going to identify the ones that are productive though through a layoff? If you just do a general cut across the board based on 'opinions' how do you know that the ones that are left are the useful ones that will keep you lean?
And then it's the fact that most who see productive people being slashed will ultimately reach the conclusion that productivity isn't the most important but being loud enough is.
Feels like a fine line. But yes, if these companies were bloated then something needed to be done. I'm just curious if "departing with very talented people" is the way to go.
> If you just do a general cut across the board based on 'opinions' how do you know that the ones that are left are the useful ones that will keep you lean?
This is hard. Which is why you identify obvious outliers first. It's much easier to identify obvious slackers and top engineers who sell their soul for your company (again, not a good thing, but for the sake of the argument -- and realism -- we're forgoing ethics here) than it is to identify lower-than-average or higher-than-average employees who are much closer to the median.
Next, a company looking for saving costs would be looking at top-earning employees with a long tenure. There is most likely not a lot of fat to trim here, but the profits could outweigh the risks.
If you're looking to increase productivity and profits only, you'd also have a look at non-value-producing employees, or those who introduce friction. These employees may add to a company's culture by providing equality strategies or acceptance groups in strong economic times, which in turn could also attract more employees with a similar culture fit, but money is scarce now and shareholders want profits, so they must go. I've seen this happen first hand.
However, you are forgetting one thing most people who are productive may not be loud enough to show that they are productive. It's not until they leave that you understand the work they have done.
This becomes even harder if it is top level down that makes the decisions, maybe cutting the manager at the same time. Here, it's impossible to know which has potential, who is running the show and who is doing very little.
We saw this with Twitter, when Elon Musk cut across the entire company and then had to beg people to come back because they realized this after the fact.
In most cases you'd be too stubborn to ask people to come back as it would look bad on you as a leader.
