Blaming "Low Performers" in Tech Layoffs
Tech layoffs have become an unfortunate reality in the last couple of years, with big companies routinely announcing cuts that affect thousands of employees. But a disturbing trend has emerged: large tech firms making a point to emphasize that layoffs are focused on so-called "low performers." Meta is the latest to follow this playbook, recently laying off about 5% of its workforce while explicitly framing it as a purge of underperformers.
This unfortunate — and unfortunately public — narrative is not just damaging to those employees who suddenly find themselves out of a job—it also reflects poorly on the company itself. Tech workers, recruiters, and the broader industry take note of how layoffs are handled, and companies that choose to frame job cuts this way risk long-term damage to their reputations and future hiring efforts.
Why Would a Company Do This?
Publicly tying layoffs to performance allows companies to shift blame away from leadership and onto employees. There are several reasons a company might take this approach, and all of them may be true at the same time:
Preserving Investor Confidence – Do we really have to point this out? Layoffs are often a sign that a business is facing financial difficulties or failing to execute its plans effectively. Right now, many companies are struggling with their AI transformations, failing to integrate new technologies efficiently, and falling short of the ambitious returns they promised investors in exchange for some wildly high capital investments. Wall Street is already taking notice of these missteps. By framing job cuts as a performance issue rather than a necessity driven by business challenges, leadership hopes to reassure investors that everything is under control.
Deflecting Responsibility from the CEO – If a company has over-hired, miscalculated its growth trajectory, or failed to adapt to market changes, layoffs become an admission of strategic failure. (Remember the metaverse?) Many tech CEOs—often famouns for their oversized egos and reluctance to admit mistakes—would rather shift the blame onto rank-and-file employees than take responsibility for mismanagement. By labeling layoffs as a purge of "low performers," they create a narrative that protects their own reputations as infallible decision-makers.
Creating a False Sense of Meritocracy – Tech companies often cultivate a culture where employees believe they succeed solely based on merit. A significant portion of their HR capital is invested in the fallacy that their performance review processes are somehow "objective" and infallible. Suggesting that layoffs only affect poor performers reinforces this myth, even when the reality is that entire teams and projects are cut regardless of individual contributions.
Real Harm to Employees
The stigma attached to being laid off is already difficult enough, but branding affected employees as "low performers" compounds the damage in multiple ways:
Hurting Future Job Prospects – Recruiters and hiring managers may hesitate to consider candidates who have been laid off under this kind of narrative (or even folks who just happen to leave the company around the same time period). It forces employees to carry an unfair label that makes their job search even more difficult.
Damaging Self-Esteem and Mental Health – Losing a job is a traumatic event for an employee’s entire family. Being told that it happened because you were a "low performer"—even if it's not true—can significantly impact confidence and well-being, making it harder for affected employees to bounce back.
Ignoring the Reality of Business Decisions – Many laid-off employees were doing their jobs well, but their roles were eliminated due to shifting company priorities such as the vaunted “AI transformation”, budget constraints, or organizational restructuring. Calling them "low performers" is both inaccurate and cruel.
Long-Term Impact on Companies
Companies that engage in this kind of messaging risk alienating the very talent they will need in the future. Tech workers talk, and reputations travel fast. When a company publicly blames its departing employees, the remaining workforce notices—and so do prospective hires. This can lead to:
Diminished Trust Among Current Employees – Those who remain may worry that they, too, will be scapegoated in the future, leading to lower morale and engagement.
Difficulty Hiring Top Talent – The best engineers, designers, and product managers will think twice in the future before joining a company known for treating its employees poorly during tough times.
A Tarnished Employer Brand – While layoffs are sometimes necessary, how a company conducts them becomes part of its identity. Compassionate and fair treatment of employees fosters loyalty and attracts strong candidates, while harsh treatment has the opposite effect.
A Plea for Compassion
Layoffs are hard for everyone involved, and companies have a responsibility to handle them with care. Instead of blaming employees, businesses should focus on supporting them—offering severance, outplacement assistance, and transparent communication. The people being let go are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; they are individuals who have contributed to the company’s success, and they deserve dignity and respect.
Tech companies that value their long-term reputations should recognize that how they handle layoffs will be remembered. Treating employees with compassion is not just the right thing to do—it’s also good business.
If you know someone affected by Meta’s recent layoffs, please do what you can to help them find new positions where they can thrive. These employees are no doubt talented, motivated, and capable of making meaningful contributions elsewhere. Let’s support them in finding opportunities that allow them to shine.
