“`html

In 2022, following many years of robust expansion, technology firms in the United States commenced laying off large numbers of workers. The announcements — which persisted into 2023 and 2024, affecting both major firms and startups — dominated the news: Meta eliminated 11,000 positions, amounting to 13% of its workforce. Microsoft dismissed 10,000, Amazon 27,000. In total, from 2022 to 2024, over 500,000 tech employees were let go. Smaller reductions have continued; this week, Microsoft terminated more than 6,800 positions globally, nearly 2,000 within Washington state.

In 2023, researchers at the University of Washington enlisted a group of 29 dismissed U.S. technology workers to examine the implications of these extensive layoffs on employees. Over a period of five weeks, participants contemplated topics such as job hunting and the possibilities for workplace organization. They exchanged their insights and interacted with one another in a private Slack channel. Overall, the group displayed ambivalence regarding tech employment. They conveyed that the work often lacked fulfillment, even though they planned to pursue careers in the industry.

The researchers shared their findings on April 30 at the ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems in Yokohama, Japan.

UW News interviewed lead author Samuel So, a PhD candidate at UW specializing in human-centered design and engineering, regarding the evolving perceptions of the tech sector, the potential for workplace organization, and why employees find themselves in a state of “cruel optimism” within the industry.

Can you provide some background regarding the layoffs? Why was it such a significant shock that the tech sector was implementing layoffs like this?

Samuel So: In general, the layoffs were surprising because the tech industry has been considered immune to such occurrences for the last two decades. Since the 2001 dot-com bubble failure, there hasn’t been a precedent for widespread layoffs in tech. Many technology workers faced this reality for the first time, and numerous layoffs occurred abruptly — individuals learned about job cuts when their access to work accounts was terminated or via impersonal email notifications.

Companies typically attributed the layoffs to macroeconomic elements such as high interest rates, industry-wide revenue declines, and excessive hiring during the pandemic.

Interestingly, these companies were announcing layoffs in swift succession. Some seemed to be performing well, even achieving record profits, yet still initiated further rounds of layoffs. It is also critical to recognize that layoffs can enhance stock performance, and firms were simply imitating each other’s actions because they could. While mass layoffs may have once been viewed as taboo in the tech sector, the fact that major tech companies were engaging in this practice made it more acceptable for others to do likewise. Some also speculated that the layoffs aimed to reset labor relations to benefit employers, as tech workers had previously been able to negotiate high salaries.

I want to point out that, because the study did not involve executives or company leaders, my insights are primarily derived from news articles, public speculation, and the working hypotheses of the participants in our examination.

What motivated you to conduct this study?

SS: I’m broadly intrigued by the values and beliefs surrounding technology, as well as studying the messaging employed by tech companies. Additionally, I had a personal interest in the matter. Living in Seattle, which is surrounded by the tech industry, I was curious about how these widespread layoffs would impact not just the tech sector, but also the cultures, neighborhoods, and cities largely influenced by these tech firms.

I also attended a public STEM high school and majored in computer science in my undergraduate studies. There was a very clear message conveyed that, for many people, a tech job represented upward mobility, work-life balance, and job security. My high school was predominantly composed of low-income immigrant families, and tech jobs essentially symbolized the American dream. Thus, I was curious about how layoffs might have influenced or reshaped people’s beliefs regarding the tech industry and what that indicates for its future.

What do you believe set these layoffs apart from those in other sectors?

SS: The perception that the tech industry is immune to layoffs was a significant factor. Another element is the introduction of prominent generative artificial intelligence technologies. Some tech enterprises were announcing billion-dollar investments in AI around the time of the mass layoffs. This contributed to internal tensions and feelings of alienation that many laid-off workers endured, particularly those who sensed that companies were prioritizing technological trends over their workers’ well-being.

Many employees in the study expressed that this represented the culmination of their disillusionment with major tech firms. In numerous respects, this seems to mirror the general culture’s evolving view of these companies. What is your interpretation of this change in perception?

SS: Several participants in our study compared the tech industry to a cult, noting that it cultivates passionate individuals around leadership principles and corporate values treated as if they were scripture. Consequently, the romantic or idealistic views of tech companies are now being actively contested by tech workers. This is not especially new — employees have been expressing their concerns and dissatisfaction over the last decade. We’ve observed the emergence of collective organization and employee-led initiatives. However, I believe the mass layoffs have escalated this discontent to unprecedented heights.

Despite this, most tech employees in our study intended to remain in the sector. This creates an intriguing tension: What implications does it have for the tech workforce to be disillusioned with the values that have long driven the industry? For instance, some participants described entering the tech field with aspirations of making a difference in humanity or working on projects with significant societal implications, only to feel disappointed when their tasks were merely shifting pixels around.

Your paper focuses on the concept of “cruel optimism.” Can you elaborate on what this means and how it relates to the experiences of these workers?

SS: Cruel optimism refers to a relationship in which something you long for ends up being harmful to your well-being. The cultural theorist Lauren Berlant coined this concept

“““html
to illustrate how individuals may cling to notions of the “ideal life” due to its allure of achieving a favorable result. However, striving for this ideal existence can drive individuals to navigate volatile or ambiguous situations that expose them to peril.

In our context, harsh optimism aids in understanding why technology professionals persist in an industry that is actively contributing to their dissatisfaction and unease. Berlant presents intriguing observations about how, when concepts of the ideal life are jeopardized, individuals tend to hold tightly to these notions as much as possible, as it feels like an essential approach to existing in the world. This is evident in the way tech workers grapple with certain visions of what a good life encompasses within the tech realm, even as they openly critique the industry and its leadership.

What are some possible strategies for the tech sector to progress beyond its present circumstances?

SS: Widespread layoffs are not predestined. They weren’t prevalent in the U.S. until the 1980s, and there are historical instances of tech employees successfully resisting and challenging their dismissal decisions from the early 2000s.

We discovered that workers navigated their feelings of dissatisfaction through personal adaptations. For instance, some came to the realization that work is merely work, and moving ahead, they intended to prioritize their own interests rather than those of the organization. While this adjustment holds merit, it also poses the risk of workers isolating themselves in tackling these issues or accepting the current state of affairs.

Our paper contends that these feelings of unrest can be channeled into collective action or organization. The tech personnel in our research exhibited a desire for resistance or mobilization, yet they perceived themselves as powerless to initiate change. This aligns with the understanding that the tech sector is predominantly anti-union by its very nature. Founders of early tech enterprises claimed that unions contradicted innovation.

Nevertheless, nurturing inclusive spaces for a collective rethinking of the industry can manifest in various ways. Existing organizing entities like the Tech Workers Coalition function across disparate companies and geographical areas. Some individuals in our investigation engaged in discussions about these matters with fellow tech professionals for the first time. Simply voicing grievances and revealing dissatisfaction to trusted colleagues constitutes a form of mobilization.

Vannary Sou, a UW undergraduate in the Information School, contributed as a co-author. Sucheta Ghoshal, an assistant professor at UW specializing in human-centered design and engineering, along with Sean A. Munson, a professor at UW in the same field, are the senior scholars. This research received funding from the National Science Foundation.

For additional information, please contact So at [email protected].

“`