Meta to Slash 5% Workforce Based on Performance

Mark Zuckerberg announced that Meta would accelerate the removal of low-performing employees, cutting approximately 5% of its workforce—roughly 3,600 roles out of its 72,404 global staff.

While some employees supported efforts to raise performance standards, the announcement sparked questions about how evaluations would be conducted and concerns over morale.

Staff reactions on internal message boards ranged from inquiries about the criteria for cuts to scepticism about the timing, given recent shifts in company policies.

Meta's decision comes amidst broader changes, including plans to replace third-party fact-checkers with a community-driven notes system and the rollback of DEI programmes.

Zuckerberg told staffers in a companywide note on Tuesday:

"This is going to be an intense year, and I want to make sure we have the best people on our teams."

Zuckerberg explained that while Meta typically removes low performers over a year, this process would be expedited during the current review cycle.

Employees affected in the US would be notified by 10 February, with notifications in other regions taking longer.

The announcement garnered mixed reactions: some employees joked about the "Year of intensity", referencing Meta's "Year of efficiency", while others sought clarity on how HR would assess future potential versus past performance.

One wrote:

"I realize there is a need to raise the bar and I absolutely support this."

Another asked:

"How much of this decision will be based on performance and how much will be based on area of investment."

The news follows an already eventful week, leaving many employees grappling with uncertainty about the company's direction.

Following the announcement of cuts, one employee wrote in the internal message board:

"Teams aren't exactly strong when morale is low, and this is already a pretty rough ride over the last week."

Meta to Use Internal Performance-Review Programme to Evaluate Low Performers

Meta will rely on its internal performance-review system to determine layoffs, categorising employees into ratings such as "did not meet expectations" and "exceeded expectations."

However, staff scepticism is mounting.

They wrote:

"I would say the ratings and process creates marginally better than 'monkey's throwing darts' in terms of reflecting the actual performance and impact for a large majority of the people."

One employee questioned whether performance reviews accurately reflect an individual's contributions, while others raised concerns about how low-performing managers, as well as employees on maternity or mental health leave, would be affected.

Another employee asked:

"How are we going to balance false positive terminations of people who have context about the products and are just having unlucky halves with the cost of ramping up new people who have an even bigger chance of not being able to perform at the desired bar?"

Janelle Gale, Meta's vice president of human resources, assured employees that an FAQ would be released later that day to clarify the process.

Meanwhile, some employees voiced fears that certain groups, including LGBTQ+ staff, may face additional scrutiny in performance evaluations.

They wrote:

"As the company builds towards broader cognitive diversity, is there any outsized weighting for LGBTQ+ metamates in these perf reviews or in who gets offered severance? Just want to check whether that will be a factor."

Gale responded:

"Absolutely not. This is not in any way intended to target the LGBTQ+ community or any group. Objectivity and integrity are crucial aspects of the Perf@ process and we work hard to remove bias from our systems. We do not tolerate discrimination in any way. Full stop."

The full memo reads:

Meta is working on building some of the most important technologies in the world — AI, glasses as the next computing platform, and the future of social media. This is going to be an intense year, and I want to make sure we have the best people on our teams. I've decided to raise the bar on performance management and move out low-performers faster. 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 backfilling these roles in 2025. We won't manage out everyone who didn't meet expectations for the last period if we're optimistic about their future performance, and for those we do let go we'll provide generous severance in line with what we've provided with previous cuts. We'll follow up with more guidance for managers ahead of calibrations. People who are impacted will be notified on February 10 — or later for those outside the US. Letting people go is never easy. But I'm confident this will strengthen our teams and help us build leading technology to enable the future of human connection.

As uncertainty lingers, the question remains—are these cuts truly about performance, or is this survival of the fittest in disguise?