Mark Zuckerberg's Meta to layoff 3600 employees due to THIS reason, plans to hire...

Meta is set to lay off around 3,600 employees deemed low performers and intends to bring in new hires, according to an internal memo reported by Bloomberg. This decision, made by CEO Mark Zuckerberg, will affect nearly five percent of the company's workforce. As of September, Meta employed approximately 72,400 people.

Mark Zuckerberg said, “I’ve decided to raise the bar on performance management and move out low-performers faster." Performance-based cuts are intended to ensure that the company has the “strongest talent" and is able to “bring new people in", he said.

Such layoffs are a typical strategy among major U.S. corporations and follow Microsoft's recent announcement of similar job cuts affecting less than one percent of its workforce.

The upcoming job cuts are part of Meta's initiative to achieve a 10% "non-regrettable" attrition rate by the end of the current performance cycle, according to the memo. Employees who have been with Meta long enough to undergo a performance review and are classified as underperformers will be affected. The company has also promised that those impacted will receive “generous severance.”

Meta has revamped its policies and operations as part of Mark Zuckerberg's "Year of Efficiency" initiative, aimed at optimising costs and streamlining the organisation. In the past year, the company has already laid off thousands of employees to reduce expenses and improve profitability. These layoffs come alongside several strategic and policy changes at Meta, including recent modifications to its content moderation policies that relax rules on posts concerning controversial issues such as immigration and transgender rights.

Meanwhile, the company has recently made changes to its content moderation policies, loosening rules on posts related to controversial topics such as immigration and transgender rights. The company framed these changes as a step towards encouraging "free expression." However, the move faced criticism from employees and external groups, who expressed concerns about potential harm to marginalised communities.