In early 2025, Meta triggered a storm of controversy by laying off thousands of employees based on performance reviews. Unlike previous rounds of job cuts driven by restructuring or cost-saving efforts, this wave was different — it targeted individuals publicly labelled as “low performers”. So, why did Meta lay off employees who had previously been considered high achievers? And what does it really mean to be tagged as a low performer?
The layoffs began shortly after CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced his intention to “raise the bar on performance”. Approximately 3,600 employees — roughly 5% of the workforce — were dismissed under the new criteria. Many were blindsided, especially those returning from maternity or medical leave, who had consistently received positive evaluations in the past. This shift sparked major concern across the tech industry.
One of the most asked questions is: When did Meta start layoffs? Although the company had made significant cuts in previous years, this specific performance-based approach was rolled out in January 2025, marking a departure from standard redundancy methods.
Who did Meta lay off? According to numerous former employees, the targets included not only underperforming staff (by internal metrics), but also those who had taken leave or expressed dissent regarding company direction. One former lawyer at Meta shared on social media that she was laid off just after returning from maternity leave — despite never having received a negative review.
Many are now wondering: How does Meta evaluate performance? It appears the criteria were unclear, and in many cases, inconsistently applied. The process lacked transparency, and those affected felt it was more about optics and targets than genuine ability or contribution.
This leads to an even more troubling question: What happens when you’re labelled a low performer? In the US, where “employment at will” is the standard, being let go for performance-related reasons often excludes employees from severance pay, unemployment benefits, or internal job opportunities. Worse, the label itself can tarnish reputations and make future job searches harder, even if the judgement was unfair or politically motivated.
The broader concern now is whether Meta is creating a culture of fear. Several insiders suggested that remaining employees are now less willing to take risks or propose bold ideas, fearing that stepping out of line could cost them their job. “I’ve stopped chasing big bets,” one employee told the Financial Times. “Now it’s about playing safe.”
This approach echoes what happened at Twitter (now X) under Elon Musk’s leadership, where aggressive cultural resets led to mass redundancies and a hardened workplace environment. Microsoft has also reportedly adopted similar tactics, targeting those who received “less than expected” bonuses or stock options.
Critics argue that while performance-based layoffs may look efficient on paper, they can damage morale, reduce innovation, and erode trust within teams. Employees are left uncertain about what’s expected of them and fearful of management’s next move. In short, the cost of making a mistake has never felt higher.
So, as companies like Meta embrace performance metrics as justification for job cuts, the tech world faces a deeper question: are we rewarding actual performance, or simply enforcing obedience?
In today’s climate, where agility is key but human capital still drives innovation, businesses must ask — not just how many employees did Meta lay off, but at what cost?
Discussion