Firing people is business as usual. I don't know why this is usually taken with such surprise.
It's part of the life cycle of many companies to hyper-hire when money flows in, and cut lots of jobs when they "re-adjust". I don't think this is good, I personally don't like it, but I learned not to be surprised anymore.
We like cloud because it scales in and out: often management don't see workforce differently.
In countries with functional labor laws, it's straight-up illegal unless you're basically going through bankruptcy. Mass firings should only happen if either 1) there's a very significant economic crisis going on, or 2) the company is doing so poorly its immediate future is uncertain.
The Silicon Valley style mass-hiring followed by mass-firing style of management is indicative of poor management. In a well-run company this should never happen, as the same could be achieved by simply reducing the hiring rate and letting natural attrition take care of the rest.
Or, if you want to win big, you have to make big bets. This applies to both employers doing mass hiring and employees choosing to work at employers aiming for explosive growth.
It is not poor management, it is simply a different tactic. Sometimes things work out, sometimes they don’t. The fact that Silicon Valley has succeeded in producing the most profitable companies in the last few decades seems to be relevant.
Spotify has been around for 15 years, and its IPO was 7 years ago. They are well beyond their "explosive growth" phase, and anyone working for them could not be faulted for expecting to join a mature and stable company.
I can definitely agree with the "bet big" argument for startups - but Spotify isn't a startup and hasn't been one for years. It's a billion-dollar multinational!
Let's not romanticize correlation. Silicon valley also spent years asking how many ping pong balls fit in a bus, only hired Stanford grads, and sheltered sexual harassers in executive roles. Turns out those were neither necessary or sufficient for success either. Revenue and low interest rates can hide a lot of dumb decisions.
You wouldn't think that most people here would be campaigning for companies to hire much more slowly, conservatively, and probably at salaries more in line with the market as a whole.
It's part of the life cycle of many companies to hyper-hire when money flows in, and cut lots of jobs when they "re-adjust". I don't think this is good, I personally don't like it, but I learned not to be surprised anymore.
We like cloud because it scales in and out: often management don't see workforce differently.