During the technology sector’s COVID-19-era boom, employee headcount became one of the reigning barometers of success.
Quarter after quarter, alongside traditional metrics such as revenue growth and operating margin, companies across Silicon Valley reported to analysts and investors the thousands of workers they had added to their ballooning payrolls.
A prime follower of this more-the-merrier hiring approach was Facebook parent company Meta Platforms, which for the past three years grew its employee base at a dizzying pace.
Between the end of 2019 and its peak headcount last year, the company nearly doubled in size to about 87,000 employees.
The hiring sustained ambitious (and in some cases seemingly ill-fated) projects such as its big bet on the metaverse. At the same time, it also let the company take an aggressive stance in the talent wars as it scooped up skilled tech workers rather than watch them migrate to competitors.
HOARDING WORKERS
A former Meta employee who was laid off in the first round of cuts recently said in a video posted on rival platform TikTok that it “seemed like Meta was hiring us so other companies could not have us, and then they were just kind of hoarding us like Pokemon cards.”
In a serious case of corporate whiplash, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Tuesday said that the company would slash an additional 10,000 employees on top of the 11,000 in cuts announced in November last year. Taken together, that is a nearly 25 percent reduction of its workforce from the company’s peak just six months ago.
Investors sent the stock up 7.25 percent on Tuesday, although the shares are still hovering at about half the value reached during their 2021 zenith.
The intense tech hiring boom has now turned into a hiring bust — less euphemistically known as mass layoffs. On the surface, the deep cuts are about all the usual things that layoffs are meant to signal — controlling costs, making Wall Street happy and such.
However, they also reflect a deeper shift in thinking about the metrics that matter in a tech sector that has long been able to make up its own rules.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, as tech CEOs accelerated their empire building, a massive and growing headcount somehow became equated with a company’s overall health — a sign that it had cash, clout and big ambitions. Apple was unique in avoiding a pandemic-fueled hiring binge, and thus avoided big layoffs.
However, for the rest, a mammoth employee base now means bloat and a lack of discipline, hence why Zuckerberg has dubbed this year Meta’s “Year of Efficiency.”
TRADITIONAL MEASURE
Tech companies are instead turning to more traditional ways to measure success — in part because that is what Wall Street is demanding as the economy and their performance sours.
Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, for example, was able for years to defy calls to grow the company’s profitability alongside revenue. Now, as he faces off against a half dozen activist investors, he has cut his workforce by thousands and has lasered in on profit margins.
For Zuckerberg, broad restructuring also lets him quietly pull back on business ventures that do not seem to be going anywhere, such as his misguided efforts to sell virtual reality headsets to employers.
One source of inspiration for slimming down comes from none other than Elon Musk, who has decimated Twitter’s staff since acquiring the social media platform last year. It has gone from 7,500 employees to about 2,000, with reportedly an additional 10 percent of employees cut as recently as last month.
That Musk has somehow been able to keep the social media platform running — many would argue just barely — on a demoralized skeleton crew has likely given other tech CEOs license to reevaluate the scale of their own operations and their ability to do more with less.
TECH HERD MENTALITY
Silicon Valley enterprises tend to work in a herd mentality. They hire as a pack, and they fire as a pack. That is one reason so many of the initial cuts across the sector fell in the 6 to 10 percent range of a company’s overall head count. There does not appear to be any real magic to those numbers, other than that is what the other firm was doing.
With Meta now hitting a nearly 25 percent staff reduction, there is a very real likelihood that others in the tech world are about to follow suit. If there was ever a time to break free of tech’s group-think mentality, this is it. The companies that apply more rigor to their layoff decisions than they did to their freewheeling hiring would be the ones that reap the greatest benefit in the long run.
Beth Kowitt is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist and a former editor at Fortune. Parmy Olson is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering technology and a former reporter for the Wall Street Journal and Forbes.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS