 |
|
|
|||||
Over the past few weeks, both Meta and Microsoft have announced that they will be conducting company wide performance-based layoffs. Meta even put a marketing spin on the practice of getting rid of employees based on poor performance, calling it non-regrettable attrition. On the surface this may make sense: leaders want to ensure every individual at the company is making an impact in some way and contributing to the bottom line. And heres the biggest mistake that can occur during performance-based layoffs: deciding to embark on this process assuming that there are well-defined goals and metrics for individuals, and a clear understanding of what good versus poor performance looks like. If you have been asked to be involved in executing performance-based layoffs, consider the following: Look at factors beyond the final performance rating Many leaders assign a number, on a scale of 1 to 5, aligning to a forced bell curve when it comes to assessing the performance of their talent. And we must take the time to consider factors and details beyond the final performance rating that was given to the individual. There can be so many details behind what can be perceived as a low rating or poor performance that need to be looked at. Consider the following: Is this person new to their role? I once worked at a company that had the following rule: Individuals who were new or six months into their role automatically received not fully meeting expectationsan automatic 2 rating regardless of how they were actually doing on the job How many new managers has this person had in the past year? Who rated this individual and are they still at the company? Does the most recent manager actually understand what this individual does and works on? Is this the first low performance rating they have received? What was their rating during their last review? Is there a pattern of this individual not performing or is this an outlier? Was this person on any type of leave? I once worked at another company where it was uncovered that a number of women, including myself, were given the lowest performance rating when we were all out on maternity leave. On the other hand, you can have individuals receiving high performance ratings because they are well-liked or friends with the CEO, but have actually not achieved their goals. Look beyond the number assigned to an individual to assess whether or not they are actually performing on the job. Review self-evaluations versus the managers evaluations When leading performance-based layoffs, take a look at the documentation thats available from the most recent performance cycle. The truth about performance often lies in between an individuals self-evaluation versus the managers evaluation: what the individual thinks they achieved versus what the manager believes they have achieved. Here are some things to look for in the reviews: Where do the reviews overlap? Are there any distinct differences? Where do you see subjectivity in the managers review? Do you spot any potential bias? Is the individual taking accountability for any performance gaps and sharing what they learned? Is there a team project that failed that somehow this one individual is being unfairly judged for? Dont wait to deal with performance issues We must hold leaders accountable who dont deal with performance issues. I have worked with too many leaders who don’t want to take responsibility for someone who is not performing on the job. Instead, they will try to eliminate their role, move them to another team and make them someone elses problem, put them on a performance improvement plan, or create a difficult working environment to get them to resign. And finally, they wait for a company wide performance layoff so they dont have to intervene. If you have chosen to lead other people, its a responsibility and a privilege. You have to teach them how to do their job, coach them through mistakes, and give them detailed feedback when they arent able to complete tasks. When you decide to label someone a low performer, its time to self reflect on what role you played in this situation. If someone cant be upskilled to do the job, is unhappy in the job, or cant achieve the clear metrics of the role, your responsibility is to help them move on to what they are meant to do next. And to deal with this quickly, and not wait for an entire year for company wide performance-based layoffs. Leaders who arent held accountable for their teams poor performance should also have that reflected in their review and it should impact their compensation. While on the surface performance-based layoffs may sound like a good idea, make sure you are evaluating individuals fairly. Then you can make the decision if they should stay or move on externally to what they are meant to do next in their career.
Category:
E-Commerce
Business leaders are often reluctant to speak about their competition. Its rare that youll hear Netflixs Ted Sarandos talk about Disney+, or Skimss Jens Grede speak about Spanx. Its uncouth and unhelpful, a good PR will tell you. Thats why its utterly refreshing when Dan Clancy, CEO of the ultra-popular livestreaming platform Twitch, throws out opinions on his competitors with abandon. [TikTok] was the first platform that didnt just copy Twitch, Clancy tells Fast Company. YouTube just made Twitch on YouTube. Facebook just made Twitch on Facebook. Kick downright copied the site. It helps that Clancy doesnt see these other livestreaming platforms as direct competitors. He sees Twitch as a general player in the market of attention, putting the company in competition with every social media app, not just the live ones. Really, what were doing is competing for your time, he says. But these other livestreaming platforms are growing, and growing quickly. According to Stream Hatchet, Twitch still holds onto 61.1% of the market, but YouTube Gaming is on the rise with 22.9%. Kick, SOOP Korea, and CHZZK all have single-digit market shares, making them small but impactful. And, per Streamlabs, Twitch occupies 82.3% of the total hours streamed, but only 60.8% of the total hours watched. Twitch also struggled in 2024. Fresh off a second round of layoffs and a shutdown in South Korea, it looked like Twitch was in decline. Still, they maintained their dominancy over these direct competitors. Can that grip hold? How Twitch got (most of) their top streamers back Just a few years ago, Twitch was the only livestreamer in town. YouTube introduced their Gaming platform in 2015, but didnt meaningfully invest in expansion until a few years later. Facebook Gaming and Mixer burned bright in the late 2010s, only to be effectively shut down. Kick didnt launch until 2022. Almost all of these platforms came with something directly detrimental to Twitchs business: exclusivity contracts. Google was the biggest offender with these contracts, coaxing Twitch creators to stream exclusively on YouTubes platform with hefty bonuses. Ludwig, Dr. Lupo, and LilyPichu all took these contracts. Myth, a major Fortnite streamer on Twitch, was YouTubes biggest catch for a reported $4 million. But most of these defectors, including the four mentioned, have since returned to Twitch as their contracts lapsed. LilyPichu is the best example, because she liked the fact that she was getting this check, but she was so looking forward to the day when the contract ended, because then she could come back, Clancy says. Its because of that sense of belonging and home. Thats not just for their viewers, its also for them. Twitch isnt completely absolved from the last five years exclusivity drama. They built an exclusivity clause of their own into the Monetized Streamer Agreement, making it more difficult for creators who cross-stream to make money. But theyve since rolled that back, which Clancy sees as a benefit. He takes a creator-first approach; people come to Twitch for their favorite streamer, not for Twitch itself. Thus, anything keeping streamers off-platform (like the exclusivity clause) is bad for business. If theres a creator you watch on TikTok and they stopped posting content for two weeks, you probably wouldnt even know, Clancy says. Whereas on Twitch, your affinity is with the creators that you have come to know. Thats one reason why creators that are focused on livestreaming prefer Twitch. People are showing up for them, not just to swipe. Twitchs take on content moderation Where YouTube Gaming quietly tries to swipe creators, Kick is more vocal about being the anti-Twitch. They loudly tout their 95:5 revenue split with creators, which is fare more generous than Twitchs 70:30. And, importantly, Kick emphasizes its looser moderation policies. Kick was co-founded by a Twitch streamer, Trainwreckstv, who almost entirely moved over his popular Grand Theft Auto account so that he could avoid Twitchs policy against cryptocurrency gambling. Other big accounts, like Buddha and xQc, moved most of their content to Kick so they could gamble. Others take refuge in Kick after being kicked off Twitch. In the platform’s Community Guidelines, Twitch has specific policies against “hateful conduct” and “harassment.” But live-streaming is a popular outlet for political radicals, making these guidelines controversial. Adin Ross, for example, was banned from Twitch in 2023 after an on-screen chat projected slurs onto the stream. Ross ran to Kickwhere he later hosted President Donald Trump. Clancy says Twitch won’t loosen up moderation practices to compete with Kick. In fact, he wagers, most of the creators shifting to Kick didnt move for the looser moderation at all. While they may have said thats the reason, I think every single one of them were given a contract where they were making a lot more money than they would organically make, he says. Clancy is quick to point out that Twitchs moderation exists to make sure the platform isnt toxic. Thats why they banned crypto gambling, and why they have policies against hate and harassment. But heres where I push him. Hate and harassment are broad and flexible terms. On Meta platforms, it wouldve been considered hateful to call an LGBTQ+ mentally ill in 2024; now, its just free expression. So how firm are Twitchs policies? If you dont like what somebody is saying, then dont watch their channel, Clancy says. There are certain things that are off limits, but I dont think that has changed. . . . We have the same policies, and I think most people still would consider that saying those words is hateful. Twitch’s expansion plans One of the oddball entrants to the livestreaming game has been TikTok. Other mobile-first platforms had already launched streaming; celebrities have been over-exposing themselves on Instagram Live for years now. But Instagram Live is a monologue, not a marketplace. On TikTok, creators can now monetize their livestreams, either through receiving “gifts” from viewers or from affiliate marketing. That revenue model happens to look a lot like Twitch. Take those popular “NPC” streamers begging for roses on TikTok Live; five years ago, they might have been shilling for Twitch bits. Of course, TikTok’s future in the U.S. is anything but a sue thing. I ask Clancy about his thoughts on the TikTok ban. There would be pros and cons to a market without TikTok, he claims. [TikTok] exposed new viewers to livestreaming, which at some level helps Twitch, he says. [But] if theyre not around, then theres people that might be interested in streaming that we should be reaching out to. That’s just one way that Clancy can get more creators on Twitch. Throughout our conversation, he gleefully lists the wide variety of streamers they host. Did I know T-Pain was on Twitch? Or what about the popular TikToker James Seo, who Clancy convinced to join Twitch while at a party for MrBeast? But these fresh faces are fundamental to Clancy’s approach, the reason why he thinks Twitch can continue its dominance. When they have the creators, the viewers will follow.
Category:
E-Commerce
In the classic rockumentary This Is Spinal Tap, theres a moment when a band member demonstrates an amplifier that goes to 11one louder than 10. While its a cheeky metaphor, Ive often thought about how leadership can adopt a similar ethos, pushing beyond boundaries to foster exceptional teams. Its definitely easier said than done. Yet one thing that really pushes us to 11 is moving from a set of individual leaders to a distributed leadership. But building a global team of self-starters isnt just about ambition or delegation. Its about cultivating a culture of teamwork that empowers independence, ownership, and creativity at every level. Ive found the following five leadership principles to be pivotal in my companys cultureparticularly when it comes to building a team of self-starters. 1. Live and let others live Leadership isnt about control, its about enabling others to do their best work. By eliminating micromanagement, we empower the team to take charge of their processes and outcomes. Firstly, asynchronous workthe practice of working that doesnt require all team members to be online simultaneouslyis a cornerstone of our culture. We dont expect immediate communicationseveryone fine-tunes their own processes focusing on results rather than attending endless meetings. We choose asynchronous work despite the ongoing trend toward returning to the office (RTO). Asynchronous work drives productivity beyond the confines of a physical office, making it particularly effective for distributed teams across different time zones. By embracing asynchronous communicationwhether you operate remotely or, as in our case, in a hybrid modelcompanies can build autonomous, resilient, flexible teams capable of succeeding beyond the office. More importantly, asynchronous work powers the “flow state“where a person is fully immersed in the activity. Asynchronous work protects time and concentration that requires you to get to that state and reduces interruptions. For example, we implement no meeting Wednesdays, which is a dedicated day that enables our team members to reach their flow state. 2. Make it your job Radical ownership isnt just a buzzword; its our business philosophy. Accountability and responsibility for the outcomes empowers team members to own decisions that impact those outcomesthus, growing a leadership mindset. As a result, those team members who never say “Its not my job” grow into the most loyal ones, with a strongest sense of belonging. For us, radical ownership also means admitting mistakes and adjusting to avoid them in future. A mistake doesnt equal failure. However, the inability to learn from it is. Constant striving for self-improvement, proactivity in detecting mistakes, and radical candor in assessing work is the most efficient professional growth route. One of the guiding principles that we abide by is dont sweep dirt under the rug. This translates into taking immediate responsibility when something goes wrong and finding a solution. For example, if a product launch didnt meet user expectations, the team takes ownership, analyzes feedback, and implements changes swiftly. This results in improved user satisfaction and a stronger product. 3. Deliver every day Leadership, at its core, is about delivering outcomesa combination of quality, quantity, and timeliness. We expect our team to focus on daily outcomes, which in turn power weekly, monthly, and yearly results for the business. That way, each day is a productive end-to-end sprint, with goals and outcomes. I did, not I was doing principle cultivates ownership and accountability at every level. This principle has reshaped how we approach tasks: breaking them into smaller, manageable parts to accelerate delivery and validate hypotheses sooner. Companies like Microsoft adopt similar principles of micro productivity. Speed, combined with precision, becomes the ultimate differentiator. 4. Default to action Keeping up with the previous three cornerstones of our culture needs an action-focused attitude. Always default to action guiding principle ensures that we do the work, even if the team works asynchronously. There would be times when decision-makers are not immediately available. In these times, we encourage team members to take initiative and act based on common sense, then refactor and adapt later. Or, if its a very specific task hitting a dead end, to use the “waiting” time for something usefullike going for a walk or exercising. A study from Gallup reveals that personally accountable employees are 2.5 times likely to be engaged in their jobs. By instilling the action-driven culture, weve built a team that doesnt wait for permission to succeed. 5. Know where to draw the line Finally, leadership is about balance, which means knowing when to ask for help and when to step up. For us, this means differentiating a request for help (“Which of two color options would work?”) from dumping the responsibility (“I dont know what colors would work”). It also means resolving issues rather than making excuses, and taking calculated risks rather than resorting to inaction in the face of ambiguity. Building a culture of trust, accountability, and innovation required to develop a team of self-starters is definitely not an overnight project and needs commitment. However, it fosters a team where leadership isnt confined to titles but is a shared responsibility. Looking ahead, I envision a corporate culture where radical ownership becomes the norm. By empowering individuals to lead from where they are, we can unlock extraordinary potential and redefine whats possible, both in business and beyon.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||