Meta is laying off its ‘lowest-performing’ staffers in 2025: What do such strategies mean for companies?

In the memo, Zuckerberg said that he has decided to raise the bar on performance management and move out low performers. “We typically manage out people who aren’t meeting expectations over the course of a year, but now we’re going to do more extensive performance-based cuts during this cycle, with the intention of back filling these roles in 2025,” the CEO said in the memo.

Based on its recent quarterly report, Meta has over 72,000 employees, and if the company cuts five per cent of jobs, that would mean nearly 3,600 would be impacted. The company has said that it will notify the impacted employees by February 10. This would be Meta’s largest layoff since 2022 and 2023, when it cut nearly a quarter of its workforce.

Laying off the weakest performers—is it the best solution for companies?

Meta has outlined that it is eliminating its lowest-performing staffers; however, the Zuckerberg-led company is not the only one. It seems Microsoft, Apple, and other big tech companies are set to follow suit. According to experts, this approach can spark widespread insecurity within organisations and may lead to a lack of collaboration among colleagues as they may perceive each other as threats. In an organisational setup, this approach could likely drive attrition with the possible exit of high-performing employees, especially those without strong connections or advocates. This may even encourage “managing up,” which may, contrary to its purpose, end up reducing honest feedback.

The potential downside of this approach is that performance is usually contextual and often fluctuates over a long time. For companies, senior-level employees could contribute more significantly to costs, and layoffs at higher levels could yield a better financial impact. Also, applying this approach indiscriminately may even result in dismissing many current successful leaders who may as well be in the weak phases of their careers.

In another scenario, labelling employees as “weak performers” usually overlooks systemic issues such as vague goals, poor management and communication, and even inadequate training. Another aspect would be the loss of knowledge and diversity. Employees, who may not be high-performing but often hold valuable institutional knowledge and diverse perspectives. Arbitrary layoffs risk the loss of this wealth of experience. Such layoffs, especially on a large scale, could likely impact a brand’s reputation, making it difficult for it to attract top talent. Besides, these strategies also raise questions about the company’s planning and ability to support its workforce in tough times.

Are there any alternatives?

Instead of sacking underperformers, a viable alternative could be reskilling and upskilling. Investing in employee development programmes can turn underperformers into valuable assets. This is likely to be beneficial in the rapidly evolving tech landscape. Internal mobility options could likely improve efficiency as some employees work well in different roles or departments. Companies should explore internal mobility options before resorting to layoffs.

Proactive feedback systems, mentorship programmes, and mental health support may address performance issues early on. It is imperative to ensure that employees are not underperforming due to burnout or unrealistic expectations set by their managers or supervisors.

More layoffs in 2025?

Incidentally, last year e-commerce giant Amazon announced that it would cut around 14,000 managerial roles by the end of Q1 2025. This, according to the company, is to improve the ratio of individual contributors to managers by at least 15 per cent.

On the other hand, Microsoft is reportedly planning to pause its hiring in part of its US consulting business. Based on a CNBC report that cited an internal memo, Microsoft announced that it would lay off less than 1 per cent of its workforce. The pause in hiring is part of the Microsoft consulting division’s efforts to manage costs, which includes opting for remote sessions instead of travel for internal meetings and about 35 per cent cuts in marketing and nonbillable external resource spend.