re: Headcount: Buddy Can You Share a Line?Indeed, there is a very disturbibg trend in the industry, to let go the guys who brought a company to its current stage, mostly engineers. This is further proof (as if it was needed...) that corporate america is distroying the moral fabric of our economy and society. Team work, leadership, hard work, loyalty are empty words words nowadays.
This has always been the case with big and small companies. Only difference is people could find jobs in the past. Everyone including you should wake-up to the fact that engineering is project based work. Once the project is done you could be SOL. It's all about ROI, keeping you around increases the investment.
re: Headcount: Buddy Can You Share a Line?With regards to startups laying off engineers after the project is done, what this means is that service providers have to be *very* careful about who they buy from. If I'm a SP, I don't want to buy from any such company.
Reason? Simply put - the product will be crap in the long run. If you've lost all your engineers who designed the product, how are you going to reasonably maintain it? Even future feature development will be hurt and behind schedule because having to hire a new round of engineers requires a steep learning curve.
It's all a part of the "make it quick and get me revenue now" philosophy that has pervaded American technology, and the startups (most of them anyhow) are the culmination of this. In the long run this kills progress, as is being seen right now in the telecom industry as a whole. We are slowly and painfully learning our lesson.
re: Headcount: Buddy Can You Share a Line?The really good startups are focused on building a company. These guys know how important it is to keep the key engineering folks. A company is a living thing. It needs to evolve and grow and needs some continuity.
Unfortunately, we see more of the survival mode startups that keep the management and layoff the entire engineering teams. Takes forever for these guys to fix product bugs. And they don't have a future roadmap.
Without engineering, they are lousy acquisition targets too.
Laying off the key engineers is a recipe for disaster.
In my experience, engineers are about the last to go. If you want to talk about endangered species, try marketing. First to go, last to be re-hired. Sales seems to be the exception that varies from company to company. In desparate times they may be used to help "perfume the pig" (Gee, see all our salespeople! They MUST be selling something! How would YOU like to be an investor, Mr. V.C.???) Ultimately, if you don't sell, you die, so everybody sells, including engineers. There's a lot of death out there these days.
re: Headcount: Buddy Can You Share a Line? Without engineering, they are lousy acquisition targets too.
Laying off the key engineers is a recipe for disaster.
And it will be a well-deserved disaster too! One can only hope that any executive team that lays off its entire engineering staff in this manner ends up penniless and on the street, cradling a bottle of cheap rot-gut. I envision one of this executive's former employees coming upon the sad wreck of a man, gently removing the bottle of rot-gut, micturating in it, and then gently replacing the bottle so as not to awake the once august executive. ;-)
re: Headcount: Buddy Can You Share a Line?I'll have to go along with horse on this one, the technical staff is ususlly the lifeblood of the company- without it, no amount of marketing and sales guys can save it.
I find it odd that people express bitterness at being laid off, and feel it necessary to blame management for everything.
An ealier post stated real managers build companies- right-O - that is the correct way to go for the long term. This still does not guarantee long term sucess.
So, facing the cash wall, having finished devleopment of the product, (or reaching a key developent milestone that reduces the need for certain staff), do you hang on to those people and ride the company down the cash-out hole? No.
CEOs are obligated to keep the company moving forward to profitability (or cash positive, as applicable) Not an enviable position, but these decisons have to be made. It is unfortunate for those let go, and I would agree that they should share in some part of the future success. Usually, this is given in the form of accelerated stock option grants. Of course, few can afford to buy up their options at termination, so this may not appear to be such a great deal. then again, there are no guarantees, right?
Back to bitterness/accusations: hello folks, you are working for a company, not a private social club. The company's goal is to make money. Your goal as an employee is to make money. You work, they pay you. Best case scenario is a nice stock cash-out. The company's only obligation is to pay you for work performed. Why is there all this sense of entitlement to position, future profits, loyalty, etc?
I suggest a more objective perspective of the situation.
re: Headcount: Buddy Can You Share a Line?I see things a bit differently. How about the company's goal is to add value to society, of which we are members, in a fiscally responsible manner? And employees' goals are to help with the above, while being paid fairly, and as importantly, participating in a living organization which exists to enable ourselves and others.
Add value to society? I can see it now, a group of investors sitting arounf the table, deciding how to divvy up their fund:
"Hmmm, I think we should invest in company X because they have a clear value to society. Unfortunately, they will lose money every year, but that is inconsequential to the benenit to the world."
"but what about company Y? from all our projections, we should be able to reap 80X our investments."
No, no, the benefit to mankind is our responsibility- let's throw the whole fund into company X. I'm sure our investors will understand they lose everything, but it's for a good cause."
Um, Yeah RJ, you sure do see things differently. I'm sure you're a big Robert Heinlein fan as well....
Please differentiate what you want to see from reality. Companies are in business to make money. Period. Many have done so at serious costs to society. Cigarette companies come to mind....
The unwritten contract isn't gone- it never truly existed- management only wants you to think it exists, as it makes employees easier to manipulate.
Please give me examples of companies whose mission statement professes a love of society and a willingness to contribute to it.
I can think of one- the fiber business unit at Corning. Their mission statement clearly stated a goal to make a positive impact on society and people's lives.
Oh, yeah- they shut all fiber plants save one last year, and laid everybody off.
Scum rises to the top.