The exodus at Twitter may have been the plan all along, maybe?
Raw Text
When Peter Clowes last updated his LinkedIn profile, he listed his role as âLayoff Survivorâ at Twitter. Yet Clowes, a senior software engineer who joined the company in the spring of 2020, is now gone, too. He quit yesterday, dispassionately explaining last night on Twitter that he decided to leave not to hobble Twitter or because he hates its new owner, Elon Musk, but simply because he no longer had any incentive to stay.
It now appears that a significant percentage of Clowesâs colleagues felt the same way. While they werenât part of the 50% of Twitter employees who lost their jobs at the end of October in an unprecedented layoff at the social media outfit, as its 3,700 remaining staffers, they were presented with an ultimatum this week by Musk. The choice he gave them: commit to a new âextremely hardcoreâ Twitter, âworking long hours at high intensity,â or leave the company with three months of severance pay.
A Hobsonâs choice , Musk was clearly hoping that some percentage of Twitterâs remaining employees â who are expensive and who he had no say in hiring â would opt to leave the company. In fact, Musk reportedly told investors he might slash 75% of staff before taking over the company, so whether heâs in shock, having cut into the muscle of the company, or heâs celebrating the success of his enigmatic plan is only something Musk and his inner circle knows.
Certainly, the numbers are stunning to nearly everyone else. The New York Times reported earlier today that based on its sourcesâ internal estimates, at least 1,200 full-time employees just handed in their figurative key cards. Clowes, in a long series of tweets about his own departure, suggests the number could be even higher. Talking about his own âorg,â he writes that â85%+â of his colleagues were laid off in October and that a stunning â80%â of those who remained opted out yesterday.
What strikes us, reading Clowesâs explanation about why he left, isnât that so many people walked out with him. Itâs almost more astonishing that 100% of employees didnât leave, raising questions about who Musk thought would stick around. If he wanted only those employees with no choice but to kill themselves for now, that seems . . . like a flawed business strategy.
Otherwise, if Musk was hoping to hold onto anyone else, one assumes a carrot would have been offered. Instead, as Clowes wrote yesterday, there were only sticks and lots of them.
Clowes wrote, for example, that he left because he âno longer knew what I was staying for. Previously I was staying for the people, the vision, and of course the money (lets all be honest). All of those were radically changed or uncertain.â
Clowes left because had he stayed he âwould have been on-call constantly with little support for an indeterminate amount of time on several additional complex systems I had no experience in.â
He left because he saw no upside to Muskâs brash management style, which Clowes suggests he could have tolerated longer if he wasnât operating wholly in the dark.
Instead, by his telling, Musk still hasnât shared a vision for the platform with employees. âNo five-year plan like at Tesla,â wrote Clowes. âNothing more than what anyone can see on Twitter. It allegedly is coming for those who stayed, but the ask was blind faith and required signing away the severance offer before seeing it. Pure loyalty test.â
There has been so little communication from the top that rumors and speculation have run rampant, Clowes suggested. Among staffersâ apparent concerns: that not only will Twitter become subscription based but that adult content could become a core component of its offerings. (Underscoring how little insiders have been told, Clowes went on to reference a Wired story about a Washington Post story about Muskâs reported discussions with employees about monetizing adult content on Twitter.)
Last, wrote Clowes, there was âno retention planâ for those who stayed and âno clear upside for sticking it through the storm on the horizon. Just âtrust usâ style verbal promises.â
Indeed, by yesterday, Clowes was living in a fairly bleak work world, one in which his âfriends are gone, the vision is murky, there is a storm coming and no financial upside,â he wrote. So â[w]hat would you do?â he continued. âWould you sacrifice time with your kids over the holidays for vague assurances and the opportunity to make a rich person richer or would you take the out?â
You would take the out, which Musk surely expected.
Right? One would think?
We may never know for certain and it probably doesnât matter. The bigger question now is whether Musk can build back with whoever is left â before the whole thing caves in .
Single Line Text
When Peter Clowes last updated his LinkedIn profile, he listed his role as âLayoff Survivorâ at Twitter. Yet Clowes, a senior software engineer who joined the company in the spring of 2020, is now gone, too. He quit yesterday, dispassionately explaining last night on Twitter that he decided to leave not to hobble Twitter or because he hates its new owner, Elon Musk, but simply because he no longer had any incentive to stay. It now appears that a significant percentage of Clowesâs colleagues felt the same way. While they werenât part of the 50% of Twitter employees who lost their jobs at the end of October in an unprecedented layoff at the social media outfit, as its 3,700 remaining staffers, they were presented with an ultimatum this week by Musk. The choice he gave them: commit to a new âextremely hardcoreâ Twitter, âworking long hours at high intensity,â or leave the company with three months of severance pay. A Hobsonâs choice , Musk was clearly hoping that some percentage of Twitterâs remaining employees â who are expensive and who he had no say in hiring â would opt to leave the company. In fact, Musk reportedly told investors he might slash 75% of staff before taking over the company, so whether heâs in shock, having cut into the muscle of the company, or heâs celebrating the success of his enigmatic plan is only something Musk and his inner circle knows. Certainly, the numbers are stunning to nearly everyone else. The New York Times reported earlier today that based on its sourcesâ internal estimates, at least 1,200 full-time employees just handed in their figurative key cards. Clowes, in a long series of tweets about his own departure, suggests the number could be even higher. Talking about his own âorg,â he writes that â85%+â of his colleagues were laid off in October and that a stunning â80%â of those who remained opted out yesterday. What strikes us, reading Clowesâs explanation about why he left, isnât that so many people walked out with him. Itâs almost more astonishing that 100% of employees didnât leave, raising questions about who Musk thought would stick around. If he wanted only those employees with no choice but to kill themselves for now, that seems . . . like a flawed business strategy. Otherwise, if Musk was hoping to hold onto anyone else, one assumes a carrot would have been offered. Instead, as Clowes wrote yesterday, there were only sticks and lots of them. Clowes wrote, for example, that he left because he âno longer knew what I was staying for. Previously I was staying for the people, the vision, and of course the money (lets all be honest). All of those were radically changed or uncertain.â Clowes left because had he stayed he âwould have been on-call constantly with little support for an indeterminate amount of time on several additional complex systems I had no experience in.â He left because he saw no upside to Muskâs brash management style, which Clowes suggests he could have tolerated longer if he wasnât operating wholly in the dark. Instead, by his telling, Musk still hasnât shared a vision for the platform with employees. âNo five-year plan like at Tesla,â wrote Clowes. âNothing more than what anyone can see on Twitter. It allegedly is coming for those who stayed, but the ask was blind faith and required signing away the severance offer before seeing it. Pure loyalty test.â There has been so little communication from the top that rumors and speculation have run rampant, Clowes suggested. Among staffersâ apparent concerns: that not only will Twitter become subscription based but that adult content could become a core component of its offerings. (Underscoring how little insiders have been told, Clowes went on to reference a Wired story about a Washington Post story about Muskâs reported discussions with employees about monetizing adult content on Twitter.) Last, wrote Clowes, there was âno retention planâ for those who stayed and âno clear upside for sticking it through the storm on the horizon. Just âtrust usâ style verbal promises.â Indeed, by yesterday, Clowes was living in a fairly bleak work world, one in which his âfriends are gone, the vision is murky, there is a storm coming and no financial upside,â he wrote. So â[w]hat would you do?â he continued. âWould you sacrifice time with your kids over the holidays for vague assurances and the opportunity to make a rich person richer or would you take the out?â You would take the out, which Musk surely expected. Right? One would think? We may never know for certain and it probably doesnât matter. The bigger question now is whether Musk can build back with whoever is left â before the whole thing caves in .