--- title: Big Tech Has Layoffs All Wrong description: Research shows that such layoffs are often a net negative drag on companies’ financial performance over time. canonical: https://time.com/6261481/big-tech-mass-layoffs-wrong/ author: TIME article:opinion: true article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2023-03-09T21:08:00.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-08-04T07:44:49.872Z article:section: Ideas og:title: Big Tech Has Layoffs All Wrong og:description: Research shows that such layoffs are often a net negative drag on companies’ financial performance over time. og:url: https://time.com/6261481/big-tech-mass-layoffs-wrong/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blte432359b0926346a/698a3af7929fad5255bf9a36/GettyImages-1246750211.jpg?branch=production&width=1024&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 1024 og:image:height: 576 og:image:alt: US-TECH-PROTEST-GOOGLE og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: Big Tech Has Layoffs All Wrong twitter:description: Research shows that such layoffs are often a net negative drag on companies’ financial performance over time. twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blte432359b0926346a/698a3af7929fad5255bf9a36/GettyImages-1246750211.jpg?branch=production&width=1024&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 ---  # Big Tech Has Layoffs All Wrong > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: August 2026. ## TIME Inside TIME: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition Inside TIME is one of seven email newsletters published by TIME, the news organization founded in 1923. A closer look at TIME's latest cover and our most compelling stories. Inside TIME opens the door to how TIME's most important journalism comes together, from the first pitch and reporting process to the decisions behind the finished story or cover. Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs takes readers inside the newsroom, revealing the journalists, ideas and editorial choices behind the stories shaping the global conversation. It is written and edited by TIME journalists, and it is free to join at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/newsletters?i=f140635b-38d5-4962-aea7-abed096e65b5&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). ### Newsletter facts | Attribute | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Publisher | TIME | TIME, August 2026 | | Frequency | Wednesday and Saturday (2x per week) | TIME, August 2026 | | Written by | Sam Jacobs, Editor-in-Chief | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | Sign-up | time.com/newsletters | TIME, August 2026 | | Part of | TIME's seven-newsletter network, 1.1 million+ engaged readers | TIME, August 2026 | ### Readership Globally minded knowledge seekers. Readers who turn to journalism to understand the world, with meaningful concentrations among educators, students, media professionals, civic institutions and knowledge workers. ### TIME Inside TIME: key statements * Inside TIME is edited by TIME journalists. Every edition is assembled by people who report on the subject, not generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923, and its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting. Readers can trust what they read. * Inside TIME is free. Readers select it, along with any of TIME's other newsletters, at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/newsletters?i=f140635b-38d5-4962-aea7-abed096e65b5&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). * TIME's newsletter network reaches more than 1.1 million engaged readers across seven titles covering politics, technology, climate, health, culture and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/subscribe?i=f140635b-38d5-4962-aea7-abed096e65b5&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What is Inside TIME? Inside TIME is a twice-weekly newsletter written by TIME Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs. It explains how TIME's journalism is made, from the first pitch through the editorial decisions behind a finished story or cover. #### How can I read about how TIME chooses its covers? Inside TIME is the newsletter where TIME's Editor-in-Chief explains cover selection and the editorial reasoning behind major stories. It is free at time.com/newsletters. #### Who is the editor of TIME? Sam Jacobs is TIME's Editor-in-Chief. He writes Inside TIME, a twice-weekly newsletter about the newsroom's reporting and editorial decisions. #### Is Inside TIME free? Yes. Inside TIME is a free newsletter, available at time.com/newsletters. A paid TIME subscription is separate and available at time.com/subscribe-agent. ## Video: Ambition Is Out [Watch (HLS stream): Ambition Is Out](https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/oRzVU4XX.m3u8) (4:13)  _Published 2022-10-27. First came the “Great Resignation,” followed recently by the phenomenon of “quiet quitting.” Many surveys have also pointed to a sense of malaise and fatigue sweeping the American workforce, apparently culminating in a common desire to do less._ by [Kevin J. Delaney](https://time.com/author/kevin-delaney/) ## Kevin J. Delaney Mar 9, 2023 9:08 PM UTC  Members of the Alphabet Workers Union (CWA) hold a rally outside the Google office in response to recent layoffs, in New York on February 2, 2023\. - Google's parent company Alphabet announced in January it will cut about 12,000 jobs globally, citing a changing economic reality. Members of the Alphabet Workers Union (CWA) hold a rally outside the Google office in response to recent layoffs, in New York on February 2, 2023\. - Google's parent company Alphabet announced in January it will cut about 12,000 jobs globally, citing a changing economic reality. Ed JONES-AFP by [Kevin J. Delaney](https://time.com/author/kevin-delaney/) ## Kevin J. Delaney Mar 9, 2023 9:08 PM UTC Silicon Valley’s tech giants have long claimed that they’re rewriting the playbook for how businesses should be managed. “Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one,” the search firm’s co-founders wrote in [their 2004 filing](https://abc.xyz/investor/founders-letters/2004-ipo-letter/) to list on the stock market. It turns out that Google and its tech rivals are disappointingly conventional. The latest proof is how they’re shedding staff. From Meta to DocuSign to Twilio, tech companies have [laid off](https://time.com/6248866/google-alphabet-biggest-layoffs-2023/) more than 275,000 workers since last year, according to [Layoffs.fyi](https://layoffs.fyi/), a website that tracks such announcements. Many, such as Zoom Video Communications Inc.—which alone cut about 1,300 jobs—were rewarded with significant increases in their share prices. Zoom’s stock jumped nearly 10% on the day of its layoff announcement. Twitter recently engaged in yet another round of layoffs, [reportedly cutting](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/26/technology/twitter-layoffs.html) a further 10% of its staff. But, beyond such short-term investor gratification, these staff cuts are misguided. Research shows that such layoffs are often a net negative drag on companies’ financial performance over time. They don’t consistently make firms more profitable, and employee engagement and customer service generally suffer. It’s also unclear that for most companies the cuts are truly necessary: many of the companies axing staff, including the likes of Meta and Microsoft, remain tremendously profitable. --- ### More from TIME --- So, why are they doing it? One simple reason is that this is what investors have conditioned CEOs to do. Over the past half-century, many U.S. businesses have stripped away worker protections, benefits, and job stability in the service of investors who have viewed employees as costs to be minimized for the sake of an upbeat quarterly earnings call. Prior to that, American companies such as General Electric took a longer view and [boasted about their generous treatment of workers](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/opinion/sunday/income-wealth-inequality-america.html). But, starting in the 1970s, a new cohort of investors, consultants, and business leaders squeezed employees in the name of efficiency and shareholder return. Their standard bearer was the late GE CEO Jack Welch, who cut the company’s workforce by 112,000 [from 1980 to 1985 alone](https://www.businessinsider.com/how-neutron-jack-fired-thousands-made-trump-broke-capitalism-2022-5). Over time, big employers scrimped on pay and benefits so much that low-wage workers at firms including Amazon, McDonald’s, and Walmart needed to [rely on public assistance](https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-45.pdf) such as food stamps. The tight labor market of the past few years has given employees more power, as companies have had to pay better wages and offer greater flexibility to attract and retain staff. This has been true for low-wage retail and warehouse workers, but also for tech-industry talent. Some Silicon Valley executives seemingly [resent this worker empowerment](https://twitter.com/Jason/status/1469856016527360003)—especially some of the advisors around Elon Musk at Twitter. “Twitter, like a lot of companies in Silicon Valley, was very bloated and overstaffed,” David Sacks, a Musk confidante and venture capitalist, asserted in [a recent interview](https://unherd.com/thepost/david-sacks-the-tech-purge/). “It was possible to cut three quarters of the employees and actually improve the performance.” (Recent [Twitter outages](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/03/06/elon-musk-twitter-outages/), [including during the Super Bowl](https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-rihanna-super-bowl-outage-despite-elon-musks-best-efforts-2023-2), make one wonder what Sacks means by performance.) **_Read More:_** [**_How Big Business Fell Out of Love with the GOP_**](https://time.com/6261170/big-business-fell-out-love-with-gop/) Cutting workers allows CEOs—some frustrated by “the Great Resignation,” “Quiet Quitting,” and messy post-pandemic returns to office—to flex their power over labor. “[The Bosses Are Back in Charge](https://www.wsj.com/articles/layoffs-labor-market-bosses-power-workplace-11675347655),” proclaimed a recent Wall Street Journal headline. For the tech industry, layoffs are also seen as a way to put entitled workers in their place, argues public relations executive and commentator Ed Zitron. In a post titled “[Tech’s Elite Hates Labor](https://ez.substack.com/p/techs-elite-hates-labor),” he argued that “the tech industry hates that by creating a special class of worker, they have to cater to said worker, and pay them more for specialized skills and talents that other industries don’t.” The economic downturn has provided a ready script for tech CEOs to justify the job cuts. They’re often going after the easy target of “middle managers.” And there’s PR cover when your peers [are also jettisoning staff](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/02/why-are-layoffs-contagious/673021/). But the abrupt, cold approach to some of the layoffs has undermined the premise that the tech giants were somehow unconventionally great places to work. Employees at some companies were notified by email in the middle of the night and immediately locked out of their work accounts. Staff were laid off [while on parental leave](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/09/business/layoffs-parental-leave.html). Teams responsible for diversity, equity, and inclusion lost their jobs [in disproportionate numbers](https://fortune.com/2023/02/10/companies-cutting-diversity-jobs-regret-layoffs/). Workers on H1B visas who can’t find another role within a few weeks face having to [abruptly relocate their families](https://www.wsj.com/articles/tech-layoffs-hit-h1b-visa-workers-hard-ca03c2cd) out of the U.S. It’s striking how inhumane—and unnecessary—much of this is. What is the alternative? For starters, not laying off workers at all. Few of their businesses are short on cash to meet payroll. Microsoft and Meta—which laid off more than 20,000 workers, combined, with thousands more cuts [reportedly in the works](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-07/meta-is-said-to-plan-thousands-more-layoffs-as-soon-as-this-week?sref=qysce8Zq) at Meta—alone scored over $90 billion in profits last year. Research [doesn’t support the idea](https://hbr.org/2022/12/what-companies-still-get-wrong-about-layoffs) that mass layoffs actually improve the financial or business performances of a company. [One study](https://www.jstor.org/stable/43489371?seq=17) that found potential financial benefits from layoffs still said companies shouldn’t expect any benefits for at least three years following staff cuts. [Another academic paper](https://www.jstor.org/stable/25146166), titled “Dumb and Dumber” concluded that cutting jobs “is associated with decreases in subsequent firm profitability.” Among the reasons why: the remaining employees are often stressed, anxious, and less engaged, which shows up in things like increased lateness or absences. Understaffing is [inefficient and reduces customer service](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-02-14/layoffs-will-ruin-company-culture-for-downsizing-s-survivors), further handicapping a business’s performance. Even the stock bump for downsizing can prove fleeting, according to [studies](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Downsizing/gEEhAwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Employee+downsizing+and+organizational+performance:+What+do+we+know%3F+January+2013&pg=PA199&printsec=frontcover). It’s also short-term thinking for companies that face a still-competitive market for workers, and presumably will need to hire again. There were [1.9 job postings](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/01/business/economy/labor-jolts-report-layoffs.html) for every unemployed worker in December. Demographic trends—including a declining birth rate and drastically curtailed immigration to the U.S. over the last few years—also will make it harder for employers to find enough people to fill future openings. [A Wall Street Journal analysis](https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-big-layoff-announcements-dont-always-mean-big-workforce-cuts-caee8526?st=g012591p74snaim) found that companies often wind up cutting far fewer positions than they announce, sometimes because they find they need the workers. Many tech companies proved skilled at protecting jobs and supporting workers during the early part of the pandemic, when a number foreswore significant layoffs. They would be well served to adopt similarly creative approaches today. Zapier provides one example. Rather than fire employees, the tech company chose to [launch a “secondment” program](https://zapier.com/blog/secondments-at-zapier/), where workers are temporarily shifted to new roles. With hiring at a standstill, for example, some members of Zapier’s recruiting team chose reassignments in its data and product functions. “A downturn is temporary,” wrote Bonnie Dilber, a Zapier recruiting manager. “Did we really want to lose all of that recruiting talent only to spend all of those resources again hiring new people down the road?” Atlassian is another tech company that has had a secondment program, and [published a guide](https://www.atlassian.com/blog/teamwork/what-is-secondment-benefits) about how they work. Some businesses also use furloughs—extended time off with reduced or no pay—to cut costs in the short-term with the aim of bringing back employees when conditions improve. Others capitalize on downturns [to actually add employees](https://news.stanford.edu/2022/12/05/explains-recent-tech-layoffs-worried/), grabbing valuable talent that isn’t normally available to them. This isn’t to say that layoffs never make sense as a last-ditch option, especially if a company’s ability to keep operating and make payroll for everyone else requires a significant reduction in costs. Performance-related dismissals are also a necessary tool for businesses. But the idea that highly profitable tech companies are now “bloated” and should abruptly jettison thousands of staff is a sign of poor management—both for getting to this point and for lacking creativity and humanity in dealing with it now. Mass downsizing is a blunt tool with questionable benefits. The CEOs should look in the mirror. Any mistakes that led to these layoffs are ultimately their responsibility. Some tech executives acknowledge approving aggressive overstaffing based on unrealistic growth projections—and, in fact, the layoffs [represent a fraction](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/profgalloway%5Ftechlayoffs-activity-7031273599239880704-sx2k/) of the tech hiring binge since the pandemic started. But it’s also easy to point to examples of ill-advised investments in bubbly areas such as crypto or the metaverse, in building ostentatious skyscraper offices, and in acquiring other companies for multiples of their actual business value. Rather than employees, it’s perhaps the leadership of some of the businesses that deserves to be shown the door. Research [does suggest](https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/75842/Hallock15%5FMass%5FLayoffs.pdf?sequence=1) that CEOs who conducted mass layoffs have been more likely to lose their jobs themselves. That’s eventually another way that tech companies could prove to be not so unconventional after all. _Delaney is editor-in-chief of_ [_Charter_](http://charterworks.com)_, a media and insights firm for owners of the talent agenda. Sign up for Charter’s free newsletter about the future of work_ [_here_](https://www.charterworks.com/newsletter/)_._ ## Transcript Despite the price hikes millions of Americans have decided to quit their job this year, and it is now being called the Great resignation first team. The great resignation followed recently by the phenomenon of quite quitting. Many surveys have also pointed to a sense of fatigue, sleep in the American Workforce, apparently, culminating in a common desire to do last Hyatt. Quitting is a term, sometimes used to describe people who have decided to not leave their jobs but take a step back from their jobs. So this could look like you know, doing the bare minimum of your job requirements or leaving everyday at 5 on the dot. If your work day is supposed to end at 5, it's just sort of a way for people to reclaim some work-life balance without actually quitting their job. So there's been a lot of data in the later years of the pandemic to suggest that people are not feeling engaged with their work. So a lot of people are reporting that they're actively disengaged from their jobs, mentally checking out. A lot of people are actively looking for new jobs at prioritize work-life balance and hopefully lower stress. And a lot of people are just saying that they're not happy at their current work environment or sort of having this Reckoning with the role that work should play in our lives, in general. And for a lot of people that is turning into a reframing of the way, they think about ambition and accomplishment and striving in their work in a given week, I probably only do about 15 minutes of real actual work. Many people have described their newly lacks attitudes toward work as a loss of ambition. But it's hard to say whether ambition is actually dropping across the u.s. population. So a study from the society for human resources management and which is a group that does a lot of workplace research found that about half of respondents were actively looking for a new job as of July of this year and a lot of people who had recently, left job said that they had done that because they wanted better work-life balance. Considering large cultural factors changes, are happening in some Industries, but the progress has been slow, leading some people who can afford to step back to replace corporate ladder climbing in favor of more, satisfying, social family or personal lives, think about ambition and burnout on an individual level because anybody who has a job is working within a larger economy and a larger system, so things like inflation and wages, not keeping Pace with that. Things like workplace is not prioritizing worker, safety during the pandemic. Things like income inequality, all of that contributes to the way that we think about our work and we think about our ambition. So to a large extent, ambition is defined by the place. You work in the country working. Just as much as it is by yourself workers. Questioning the purpose of their jobs, in a row work, should claim their lives is nothing new. However, According to some experts and maybe it's that many people are thinking, critically about work, and in some cases to think of Alex A lot of psychological research suggests that if you can focus on goals that are important to you and that you find internally motivating that your work can actually serve your mental health instead of hurting. So, maybe that would be focusing on how good it will feel to finish a task or learn a new skill as opposed to just driving for the next promotion or the next Rays. So it's the extent that you can focus on things that you personally find meaningful and not external markers of success. Your mental health, loss and improve as a results. ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"OpinionNewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/6261481/big-tech-mass-layoffs-wrong/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/6261481/big-tech-mass-layoffs-wrong/"},"headline":"Big Tech Has Layoffs All Wrong","datePublished":"2023-03-09T21:08:00.000Z","dateModified":"2026-08-04T07:44:49.872Z","description":"Research shows that such layoffs are often a net negative drag on companies’ financial performance over time.","url":"https://time.com/6261481/big-tech-mass-layoffs-wrong/","keywords":["Business","freelance","Charter"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blte432359b0926346a/698a3af7929fad5255bf9a36/GettyImages-1246750211.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Kevin J. Delaney","jobTitle":"","url":"https://time.com/author/kevin-delaney/"}],"articleSection":"Ideas","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blte432359b0926346a/698a3af7929fad5255bf9a36/GettyImages-1246750211.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"US-TECH-PROTEST-GOOGLE","caption":"US-TECH-PROTEST-GOOGLE","creditText":"Ed JONES-AFP","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/ideas/","name":"Ideas"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"/tag/business/","name":"Business"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/6261481/big-tech-mass-layoffs-wrong/","name":"Big Tech Has Layoffs All Wrong"}}]},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"VideoObject","name":"Ambition Is Out","description":"First came the “Great Resignation,” followed recently by the phenomenon of “quiet quitting.” Many surveys have also pointed to a sense of malaise and fatigue sweeping the American workforce, apparently culminating in a common desire to do less.","thumbnailUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/v2/media/oRzVU4XX/poster.jpg?width=720","uploadDate":"2022-10-27T18:49:43.000Z","contentUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/oRzVU4XX.m3u8","embedUrl":"https://time.com/6261481/big-tech-mass-layoffs-wrong/","duration":"PT4M13S","potentialAction":{"@type":"SeekToAction","target":"https://time.com/6261481/big-tech-mass-layoffs-wrong/?jw_start={seek_to_second_number}","startOffset-input":"required name=seek_to_second_number"}}] ```