Two rounds of layoffs seems to say something that one round doesn't. You would expect that all things being equal there is never a scenario where it is better to do two cuts instead of just one. So why?
a) things were much worse than realised. Maybe but it would have to be a big shock coming because Meta's general performance has held up OK, certainly nothing that would warrant this.
b) HR reasons? some sort of requirement that prevented them doing it all at once? Someone said that this time around they were doing masses of performance reviews. So perhaps the first wave were arbitrary cuts but they couldn't do the second without actual evidence of poor performance backing it?
c) change of plans? Mark wants to go all in AI instead of Metaverse and this means grand restructuring of his whole workforce? You'd think that would be very evident from which teams get laid off (we'll see).
a) things were much worse than realised. Maybe but it would have to be a big shock coming because Meta's general performance has held up OK, certainly nothing that would warrant this.
b) HR reasons? some sort of requirement that prevented them doing it all at once? Someone said that this time around they were doing masses of performance reviews. So perhaps the first wave were arbitrary cuts but they couldn't do the second without actual evidence of poor performance backing it?
c) change of plans? Mark wants to go all in AI instead of Metaverse and this means grand restructuring of his whole workforce? You'd think that would be very evident from which teams get laid off (we'll see).