The way the redundancies were carried out were very disrespectful. People got invited to a meeting and essentially told "You'll lose access in about 30 minutes" -- from a close source who was laid off after literally receiving feedback that they were the most efficient in their department a couple days prior.
Sadly being "the most efficient in their department" doesn't always mean anything in layoffs. Whole departments and teams come and go, and salaries are also a concern (e.g. 20 year vet vs 5 year mid level with half the salary)
I don’t understand how redundancies can be carried out respectfully. Redundancies suck. Someone will always be on the list that didn’t expect to be and quite honestly shouldn’t be.
People will say they know the right answer and some aspect that helps them would’ve been considered (tenure, peer feedback, # of commits). It always sucks no matter what.
That's a common practice, but very foolish. If your employee is at all trustworthy they don't need to have their access revoked (and if they aren't trustworthy they'll just do the damage before they tell you they are leaving). So your org is robbing themselves of employee time without any actual benefit.
You're preaching to the choir here. The most depressing thing is that people leave, like a forest fire, behind echoes of their impacts but we never really get to give them their flowers. The turnover is so rote and frequent that when the best guy in the team leaves, it's not only just a 'I'm so proud to have ... Thank you guys...' email or slack message, but everyone else is like 'Just Another Monday in Corpo Hell.'
