The silence is deafening.
The very top is 100% silent.
Midmanagers are silent.
We hear only occasional comments from a manager or two.
The trust is lost. This is just a demonstration of a forever-changed culture.
I used to love working here.
Over, and out.
The he-l of it is that they need top SEO talent (like decades of experience needed) to reinforce the GDM brands (the headwaters of their business model). My heart goes out to everyone impacted; the layoffs are far more wrenching than they need to be with the amount of value that could be unlocked if leadership would just acknowledge that they need specialized skill sets to compete organically.
I know for a fact that top SEO talent they needed was in the running for a VP - Technical SEO role that was open a year ago. All of this could have been avoided if leadership wasn't so godda-ned egotistical and stubborn.
“culture”…….what, the one of backstabbing, a horrible toxic environment with HR/TA Senior Leadership managing upwards and doing all they can to pass the blame elsewhere.
I remember the days when we had good TA leaders, leaders who actually cared and it was a fun environment, work hard but also great socials. We were also trusted to deliver which we did.
@en I believe they made so many lives miserable to get people to quit so they wouldn’t need to pay severance. Over half my department was on a performance management plan in 2025. Make it make sense.
@ed absolutely performance manager people under performing. But not those who are doing everything right, and are in a territory that is cr-p, or a recruiting market we can’t afford talent, or the fact no one is leaving companies if they feel secure… so much were market challenges disguised as performance management, or “do more”. Bonkers.
You know, I once worked for a company that had to let people go. It was during the 2008-2009 crisis. I wasn't affected. However, let me tell you how everyone was treated.
The CEO came to talk to our office (one of several offices). He explain the situation that we were in. He explained how he had no choice. 10% had to go (and received a company reference), the rest needed to agree to a temporary salary adjustment to weather the storm. Nobody was made feel bad, we were not bs-d, he even had a PowerPoint with the numbers, leadership wasn't going around touting an "amazing culture" or "everything's so great".
I would call that a much better way, don't you think?
I also agree with the person that replied to you earlier pointing at the stock (and overall company) performance. If you want to talk about "underperformers", sure, and ask yourself, what about those that actually manage this place?
Make life miserable so they get out, as opposed to "real" non-performers?
Love it, let me quote you!
The stock is in the list of worst performing:
"So we shouldn't performance manage people out when they're not delivering? Just tolerate underperformance? That's your answer?"
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/best-worst-performing-stocks
They should absolutely not tolerate underperformance.
@da So we shouldn't performance manage people out when they're not delivering? Just tolerate underperformance? That's your answer?
@OP The people used to be the reason. I wouldn’t trust a soul, now. They removed leaders that pushed back on performance managing people out, so it’s no wonder the ones left are silent.