I was part of the second major layoff the company conducted this year. Two rounds in under six months is concerning. What made it worse was the lack of any clear warning signs—most company-wide communications painted a picture of reasonably consistent growth, and indicated that we were mostly making good progress toward goals.
Communication from senior management and executives is often overloaded with corporate jargon, making it hard to understand what's actually being said. Unfortunately, the one executive who in my experience communicated in a more transparent, straightforward way was either let go or demoted in this latest round of cuts—it's unclear exactly what happened.
After the previous round of layoffs, a team leader assured us that everyone who remained was considered essential and long-term. While I’ve been in the industry long enough to view that with skepticism, I imagine others took the message more seriously.
The company frequently leans on the “we’re still figuring things out as a startup” excuse, both internally and in public responses. But after seven years in operation and with hundreds of employees, calling it a startup doesn’t hold up. In my view, this phrase serves as a deflection from deeper, ongoing issues with leadership, communication, and strategic direction—problems that remained unaddressed throughout my tenure.
While a public response here claims that “severance and personalized transition support” were provided to all affected employees, my experience felt anything but personalized. I was laid off only via a generic email from an HR address, signed only as "Human Resources." The attached documents appeared hastily assembled—one referenced a 401(k) provider the company no longer used, suggesting they may have been recycled from a previous layoff. As for the “personalized transition support,” I have no idea what that was supposed to entail. It may have just been more corporate jargon with no real substance behind it.
