He’s telling his best remaining people that they can either sign a loyalty oath pledging to work epic hours under intense pressure for a mercurial boss who could fire them at a moment’s notice … or they can have three months pay and find better jobs.
Unless there’s an incentive – which could range from financial to career opportunities – this does not seem like a winning management approach. Peculiar for sure. If these workers are good (and since they were not among the laid off, presumably they are the better ones) then they can likely find other rewarding work opportunities without trouble. Crazy stuff.
Alternative view: It is possible that 75% of Twitter’s staff did not contribute much to the value chain. Hence, getting rid of so many workers may lead to greater efficiency.
I saw a few situations where poor performers on teams led to lower overall team output. Other team members were covering for the poor performers. Not only did this take up their time but it reduced the morale of the team. Once poor performers were removed from the team, overall team output went up – by a lot!
It could be that some of Silicon Valley’s “tech” companies have become centers of coddled workers who were more focused on free lunches, dinners, company provided bus shuttles to work, on site gyms and chefs, etc – than on productivity. I have not worked in Silicon Valley in a long time and have no firsthand insights on this.
Similarly, some of the “tech” companies had sufficient funds when times were good, to focus on projects that were likely not that relevant – but they were fun to do!