I’m struggling with something that’s been keeping me up at night. As an engineering director, I’ve had to participate in layoff conversations this year, and the disconnect between what we’re doing and why we’re doing it is eating at me.
The Numbers Don’t Add Up
Tech layoffs have hit 55,911 people in early 2026—that’s 736 people losing their jobs every single day. Amazon alone announced 16,000 cuts. Block slashed 40% of their workforce (4,000 people). Meta cut 1,500 from Reality Labs.
Meanwhile, Amazon reported $716.9 billion in revenue for 2025. Record profits. Record growth. Record cuts.
The “Culture-First” Narrative
What’s really getting to me is this new language we’re seeing everywhere: “culture-first restructuring.” Companies aren’t just cutting costs anymore—they’re “strategically aligning their workforces with cultural fits” and “retaining top talent while adapting to market shifts.”
Sounds noble, right? But here’s what I’m seeing on the ground:
- Subjective criteria replace objective metrics. When “culture fit” becomes the primary evaluation criterion, who decides what that means?
- Diversity takes the first hit. In my experience mentoring Latino engineers through SHPE, the folks who get labeled “not a culture fit” are often the ones who look different, speak differently, or challenge the status quo.
- It’s a convenient shield. “Culture alignment” is much harder to dispute than performance metrics. How do you prove you do fit the culture?
My Question for This Community
I get that businesses need to be profitable. I understand market pressures. But when you’re posting record revenue and cutting hundreds of people per day while calling it “culture-first restructuring”—aren’t we just putting PR spin on profit protection?
As leaders, we’re supposed to build and protect our teams. But we’re also accountable to shareholders and executive mandates. Where’s the line between legitimate strategic restructuring and using “culture” as cover for maximizing margins?
What’s your experience been?
- Have you seen “culture-first” language used in layoff decisions? How did it play out?
- What accountability do we have as engineering leaders when we know the stated reason doesn’t match the real one?
- Is there a way to do layoffs that’s actually ethical, or is that a contradiction in terms?
I’m genuinely trying to figure out how to reconcile my responsibilities to my team with the business realities we’re facing. Would love to hear how others are thinking through this.
—Luis
Luis, thank you for being so honest about this. As a VP, I’m living this tension every single day, and it’s exhausting.
The Executive Pressure Is Real
Here’s what happens at the VP level: CFO presents a target number for cost reduction. CEO talks about “efficiency” and “strategic focus.” Board wants margin expansion. And somehow, that number lands on my desk as “we need to reduce headcount by 15%.”
Then I’m supposed to turn around and tell my directors: “This is about culture fit and strategic alignment.”
The “Culture Fit” Trap
You’re absolutely right about the diversity impact. I’ve seen this pattern play out multiple times:
-
Objective metrics go out the window. When we use performance data, the picture is clear. When we switch to “culture fit,” suddenly it’s all gut feelings and unconscious bias.
-
The quiet ones get cut first. Guess who’s most likely to be “not culture fit”? The engineers who don’t drink with the team, the ones with caregiving responsibilities who can’t stay late, the ones who communicate differently because English isn’t their first language.
-
“Top talent” often means “people like us.” Research shows that retention decisions during layoffs correlate more with social networks than actual performance. The engineers who golf with VPs mysteriously survive restructuring.
What I’m Fighting For
I refuse to let my team’s layoffs be driven by bias disguised as culture. Here’s what I’m pushing for:
- Data-driven criteria: Performance metrics, impact assessments, skill gap analysis. If we can’t quantify it, we don’t use it for layoff decisions.
- Bias audits: Analyzing demographic patterns in who gets cut vs retained. If we’re disproportionately cutting women or people of color, that’s a red flag.
- Transparent communication: Telling the truth about why we’re doing this. If it’s about costs, say it. Don’t hide behind culture language.
The Hard Truth
But Luis, here’s where I struggle: Even with all these safeguards, I’m still participating in a system where profitable companies cut people to make shareholders happy. The ethical frameworks I’m creating feel like rearranging deck chairs sometimes.
At what point does “doing layoffs responsibly” become complicity in a fundamentally unjust system?
I don’t have the answer. But I do know that the least we owe our teams is honesty about what’s really happening.
—Keisha
I’m going to offer the business strategy perspective here, even though I know it might not be popular.
When Layoffs Are Actually Strategic
Not all layoffs are profit protection disguised as culture. Sometimes they genuinely are strategic realignment. Here’s when I’ve seen it work:
-
Sunsetting product lines: We had a legacy enterprise product generating revenue but zero growth. Maintaining that team was opportunity cost. Letting those folks go (with generous severance and support) freed resources for our core product.
-
Closing geographic offices: When we shifted to remote-first, maintaining expensive SF and NYC offices made no sense. Those cuts were strategic, not cultural.
-
Technology pivots: When you’re moving from monolith to microservices, or from on-prem to cloud, skill requirements change. Sometimes the team composition has to change too.
The Metrics That Should Matter
If layoffs are actually strategic, you should be able to answer these questions with data:
- What capabilities are we eliminating? Why are they no longer strategically important?
- What capabilities are we protecting or adding? How do they align with our 3-year roadmap?
- What’s the ROI calculation? Not just cost savings, but opportunity cost of maintaining vs reallocating.
Where “Culture-First” Becomes BS
But Luis, you’re right that “culture alignment” often is just cover. Here’s the tell:
If a company posts record profits and then does across-the-board cuts without clear strategic rationale—that’s not restructuring. That’s financial engineering.
Amazon cutting 16,000 while reporting $716.9B in revenue? Unless they’re fundamentally changing their business model (they’re not), that’s margin expansion dressed up as strategy.
The Question I’m Wrestling With
As a product leader, I participate in these decisions. And I’ve noticed something troubling: The “strategic alignment” conversation always happens AFTER the CFO sets the headcount reduction target.
We never start with “What capabilities do we need?” and derive headcount from there. We start with “Cut 15%” and then retrofit strategic justification.
That tells you everything about whether this is really strategic or just cost optimization with better branding.
—David
Reading this thread is bringing back some painful memories from my failed startup.
The Startup I Worked At That Did It Differently
Before I founded my own company (which subsequently failed, but that’s another story), I worked at a startup that hit a cash crunch in 2019. We needed to cut 30% of the team to survive.
Here’s what the founder did:
-
Full transparency: Called an all-hands. Shared the financials. Explained exactly why we needed to cut costs and by how much.
-
Asked for volunteers: Offered 6 months severance to anyone who wanted to leave. Some folks were already thinking about career changes—this gave them a generous runway.
-
Protected new parents and visa holders: Made it clear that anyone on H1B or with new kids would not be cut involuntarily. The team needed stability more than “culture fit.”
-
Kept the diverse voices: Specifically retained the people who challenged leadership thinking, even when they were “difficult.”
The result? We lost some great people, but the team that remained trusted leadership completely. Morale recovered in weeks, not months.
What I Saw Elsewhere
Contrast that with other startups I’ve worked with:
-
The “performance improvement plan” purge: Suddenly everyone who’s being cut is on a PIP that materialized three weeks ago. Come on.
-
The “culture fit” culling: Mysteriously, the folks who don’t fit are all the ones who pushed back on crunch culture or spoke up about harassment.
-
The stealth layoff: Just quietly stop inviting people to meetings, strip their access, and hope they quit before you have to pay severance.
The Impact on Those Who Remain
Luis, you asked about ethical layoffs. Here’s what I’ve learned: How you treat people on the way out determines whether your culture survives.
When people see their colleagues discarded without dignity, they don’t think “Whew, glad I survived.” They think “I need to get out before they do this to me.”
The startup I mentioned? We rebuilt and exited successfully three years later. The companies that did sneaky layoffs? Most of them collapsed because their best people left as soon as they could.
Culture isn’t what you say. It’s what you do when it’s expensive to do the right thing.
—Maya
As a CTO who’s been through multiple restructuring cycles, I want to address the accountability question directly.
What We Owe Our Teams
When I participate in layoff decisions, I operate from a clear set of principles:
-
Truth over spin: I will not lie to my team about why we’re doing this. If it’s cost reduction, I say so. If it’s strategic, I explain the strategy with specifics.
-
Process integrity: Bias audits, documented criteria, review mechanisms. If we can’t defend our decisions with data, we don’t make them.
-
Dignity and support: Generous severance, outplacement services, internal job boards, reference letters. The corporate responsibility framework is clear—we owe displaced workers real support.
-
Protecting the vulnerable: Visa holders, new parents, people with health situations. If there’s any way to avoid cutting these folks, we find it.
The C-Level Accountability Question
Luis asked about the line between strategic restructuring and profit protection. Here’s my framework:
Strategic restructuring has these characteristics:
- Clear capability model showing what skills we need vs have
- Specific business outcomes tied to the changes
- Willingness to invest in retraining before cutting
- Leadership taking compensation cuts alongside workforce reductions
Profit protection looks like:
- Targets set as percentages (“Cut 15%”) without capability analysis
- Executive bonuses unchanged or increased
- Layoffs announced alongside stock buybacks
- “Culture fit” language without objective criteria
When Amazon cuts 16,000 people while posting record revenue and executive compensation stays steady—that’s not strategic. That’s wealth transfer from workers to shareholders.
Where I Draw My Line
I’ve twice refused to execute layoffs the way the board wanted. Once I negotiated different terms. Once I left the company.
I’m privileged enough to have that option. Most engineering leaders aren’t.
But here’s what every technical leader can do: Document everything. When you’re told to cut based on “culture fit” without objective criteria, put your concerns in writing. When demographic patterns show bias, escalate it. When leadership asks you to lie to your team, refuse.
You may not be able to stop the layoffs. But you can refuse to be complicit in the dishonesty.
The Uncomfortable Truth
At the end of the day, if you’re a technical leader at a company doing unethical layoffs, you have three options:
- Fight to change it from within (document, escalate, demand better)
- Execute it with as much integrity as possible while looking for exit
- Refuse and leave immediately
There’s no option where you come out feeling good. This is why leadership is hard.
—Michelle