关于像Block公司那样进行裁员时诚实沟通的模板
对于被裁员的员工，我认为杰克的信并没有做到应有的关怀。因此，我写了一封更直接的信。希望未来的信件能够遵循这种方式。
今天，我们做出了公司历史上最艰难的决定之一：我们将把组织规模缩减近一半，从超过10,000人减少到不到6,000人。这意味着将有超过4,000人离开公司。
我想非常直接地告诉你们为什么会发生这样的事情。
决策的现实
首先，让我们明确一点：你们并不是被人工智能取代。这个技术并不比你们更优秀，也没有“超越”你们。事实更简单也更令人沮丧：我们制定了一个特定的战略方向，但没有成功。我们过度扩展了，现在需要进行调整，以保持业务的可行性。
然而，我们所处的市场要求一种特定类型的“成功”故事。如果我们仅仅宣布我们未能达到目标并需要削减成本，市场将会出现波动，打击我们的估值，并危及我们剩余的运营。
“人工智能驱动”的叙事
为了保护公司的地位，我们将这一转型框架设定为向人工智能驱动的组织演变。通过将这些裁员归因于智能工具的“前所未有的效率”和扁平化的团队结构，我们向市场传达了一个信号：我们削减损失并不是因为失败，而是出于未来盈利的战略考量。
这对公司的叙事和股东来说是一个战略上的“双赢”。它让我们在削减成本的同时，被视为人工智能革命中的行业领导者。
然而，我意识到这对你们来说并不是一个胜利。我们用“技术替代”的叙事来掩盖人为规划错误，这是一种苦涩的讽刺。
对离职员工的支持
因为这个决定是我们规划的结果——而不是你们的表现——我们提供以下过渡补偿方案：
薪资：20周 + 每年1周的工龄补偿。
股权：到5月底前的已归属部分。
医疗保险：继续提供6个月的覆盖。
硬件：你可以保留你的公司设备。
过渡津贴：5,000美元（或当地等值）。
结束语
对那些离开的人：我深感抱歉。你们是这家公司建设的基石，依然是世界级的人才。任何组织都将为拥有你们而感到幸运，而我痛恨“市场友好”版本的故事暗示了相反的意思。
对留下的人：我们将“拥有”这种以人工智能为首的身份，作为我们今后与客户和投资者交流的核心。我们将以“智能”为中心进行建设，因为这是市场决定要奖励的未来。
查看原文
For the people who have been laid off, I think the letter by Jack is a disservice. So I crafted a more direct letter. Hope future letters follow this approach.<p>Today we are making one of the hardest decisions in the history of our company: we are reducing our organization by nearly half, from over 10,000 people to just under 6,000. This means over 4,000 of you will be leaving the company.<p>I want to be incredibly direct with you about why this is happening.<p>The Reality of the Decision<p>First, let’s be clear: you are not being replaced by AI. The technology is not better than you, and it didn't "outwork" you. The truth is simpler and more frustrating: we planned a specific strategic direction, and it didn't work out. We over-extended, and we now need to course-correct to keep the business viable.<p>However, we operate in a market that demands a specific kind of "success" story. If we simply announced that we missed our targets and need to cut costs, the market would react with volatility, punishing our valuation and jeopardizing our remaining operations.<p>The "AI-Enabled" Narrative<p>To protect the company’s standing, we are framing this transition as an evolution into an AI-enabled organization. By attributing these cuts to the "unprecedented efficiency" of intelligence tools and flatter team structures, we signal to the market that we are cutting losses not out of failure, but out of a futuristic lean toward profitability.<p>This is a strategic "win-win" for the company’s narrative and its shareholders. It allows us to cut costs while being perceived as an industry leader in the AI revolution.<p>I recognize, however, that this is not a win for you. It is a bitter irony that we are using a narrative of "technological replacement" to mask a human-led planning error.<p>Support for Departing Team Members<p>Because this decision is a result of our planning—not your performance—we are providing the following transition package:<p>Salary: 20 weeks + 1 week per year of tenure.<p>Equity: Vested through the end of May.<p>Healthcare: 6 months of continued coverage.<p>Hardware: You may keep your corporate devices.<p>Stipend: $5,000 USD (or local equivalent) for your transition.<p>Closing Thoughts<p>To those leaving: I am deeply sorry. You built this company, and you remain world-class talent. Any organization would be lucky to have you, and I hate that the "market-friendly" version of this story implies otherwise.
To those staying: We are going to "own" this AI-first identity moving forward. It is the core of how we will talk to our customers and our investors from this moment on. We will build with "intelligence" at the center, because that is the future the market has decided to reward.