For Meta, the Implications of this Controversy Could Extend Far Beyond Employee Morale
On Monday, Meta laid off 3,600 employees, about 5% of its workforce, citing performance issues as the main reason.
CEO Mark Zuckerberg framed the decision as an effort to “raise the bar on performance management,” positioning the cuts as a necessary move to eliminate “low performers.”
However, for many affected workers, this narrative doesn’t add up.
Several ex-employees are now speaking out on LinkedIn and Reddit, challenging the implication that they were underperformers.
Many of them point to positive mid-year reviews and a lack of corrective feedback as evidence that the layoffs were less about performance and more about meeting internal quotas.
According to a report by Business Insider, some affected employees received “At or Above Expectations” ratings in mid-2024, only to be downgraded to “Meets Most” by year-end, a lower tier that made them eligible for termination.
Internal communications from Meta suggest managers were instructed to reclassify 12% to 15% of their team into lower performance categories.
This strategic downgrading allowed Meta to meet its layoff targets without exclusively targeting genuinely low-performing staff.
For these employees, the experience feels like moving goalposts.
They were blindsided by the decision, especially given their steady records of high performance.
“I was never placed on a performance improvement plan, never given corrective feedback, and always told I was doing well,” wrote former employee Kaila Curry on LinkedIn.
Her story is echoed by others, like data scientist Joshua Latshaw, who was promoted after years of exceeding expectations but was still included in the layoffs after receiving just one “Meets Most” rating.
The Stigma of Being ‘Managed Out’
The sting of losing a job is compounded by the stigma attached to Meta’s rationale.
By publicly framing the layoffs as a purge of “low performers,” Meta has inadvertently branded these employees with a scarlet letter that could follow them into future job searches.
“It feels like we have the scarlet letter on our backs,” one laid-off employee told Business Insider. “People need to know we’re not underperformers.”
This sentiment resonates beyond Meta’s walls.
In an industry where layoffs are increasingly common, being labeled a “low performer” could affect future opportunities.
For those now seeking new roles, the fear is that hiring managers might view their applications with suspicion, assuming they were terminated for poor performance rather than corporate strategy.
The Real Cost of Reputational Damage
For Meta, the implications of this controversy could extend beyond employee morale.
In a competitive industry that thrives on top talent, mishandling layoffs can damage employer branding.
Potential recruits may question the stability of a company that appears to change performance standards to meet downsizing goals.
Additionally, the decision to link layoffs to performance could backfire, with some affected employees openly criticising Meta’s internal practices.
Curry’s LinkedIn post went viral, sparking a debate about fairness and transparency in performance evaluations.
Meta is no stranger to public scrutiny, but this situation presents a unique challenge.
The company must tackle the delicate balance between protecting its brand image and justifying strategic layoffs.
If not managed carefully, the backlash could erode trust among both current employees and potential hires.
The tech giant needs to rethink how it communicates layoffs, especially when linking them to performance metrics.
Transparency about business strategy, combined with empathy for affected employees, would go a long way in managing this crisis.
Meta’s layoffs offer a cautionary tale for other companies.
In an era of rapid change, businesses must balance operational efficiency with ethical practices.
Performance evaluations should be transparent, consistent, and free from arbitrary quotas.
The lesson is clear: how you let people go is as important as why.
It’s not just about cutting costs or improving productivity.
It’s about preserving dignity, reputation, and long-term trust.
As Meta continues its metamorphosis under Zuckerberg’s leadership, the company faces an identity crisis.
Is it a visionary leader driving the next evolution of the internet, or a ruthless cost-cutter sacrificing people for profitability?
The answer will depend on how Meta responds to this backlash—and whether it’s willing to learn from the human cost of its decisions.
For the thousands affected by these layoffs, the message is clear: They are not numbers or performance metrics. They are skilled professionals with stories, ambitions, and futures that deserve more than a scarlet letter.
