If you hire only top talent, and then 10% of your company is "underperformers" then you have built a system that turns top talent into underperformers. In which case the architects of that system need to be the ones laid off.
Intuit openly labeling the people it laid off today as being “underperformers” is one of the most purely evil things I’ve ever seen in Tech. This will make it so much harder for the folks who were laid off to find new jobs, no matter what their performance was like. The high-performers they laid off will be punished in the market just as much as the low-performers because of this announcement. Under-performing isn’t a mortal sin. It’s not a crime to punish. It can happen for many reasons that aren’t the fault of the employee: poor leadership, unclear expectations, unreasonable workloads, lack of training, conflicting incentives, bad partners… But there are a lot of unprincipled employers who won’t consider the context. They’ll see Intuit’s announcement and avoid anyone who stopped working for them in July 2024. I get it: capitalism is gonna capitalism. Companies aren’t families. They’re going to do layoffs and whatever else they think will increase shareholder value. But they don’t need to kick people when they’re down or permanently damage their careers. Shame on you, Intuit. https://lnkd.in/e8EX2DNJ
So it means that Intuit will be opening 1000 new positions soon?
UX / UI & Graphic Designer
2wFunnily, or should I rather say, sadly enough, my feeling is the majority of the architects of such systems are enough up the ladder to avoid paying for their mistakes. Enter the “Sorry, it’s just business, our numbers simply didn’t add up” mantra. This time with a particularly nasty twist.