Meta’s latest round of workforce reductions has sparked unease, not just for its scale but for the shadow it casts over former employees’ careers.

The tech giant, which announced in January that it would trim 5% of its workforce – amounting to 3,600 jobs – framed the move as a way to weed out low performers.

However, many of those affected tell a different story, challenging the credibility of Meta’s performance-based rationale.

The shock of the ‘Happiness Letter’

Employees affected by the job cuts purportedly received what some have sardonically dubbed “happiness letters,” termination notices that blindsided many who believed their performance was solid.

Some former staffers reported they had previously been rated as “Meets or Exceeds Expectations” – a middle-tier rating in Meta’s three-level evaluation system – but were then abruptly downgraded to “Meets Most”.

The latter implies that, while they fulfilled most expectations, they fell short in some areas, making them eligible for termination.

The discrepancy has left employees grappling with an unsettling realisation: performance ratings, once perceived as meritocratic, may be fluid and influenced by managerial quotas rather than objective output.

One employee summed up the confusion, telling Business Insider: “When I received the email, I was surprised by it mostly because I have a very solid performance history and no indicators of the last six months of performance problems.”

Also Read: Microsoft layoffs: Were the job cuts handled poorly?

Meta layoffs: Just a numbers game?

Internal instructions reportedly allowed managers some leeway in selecting higher-performing employees for termination if they could not meet the required quota of low performers.

This raises questions about whether the layoffs were truly about underperformance or simply an exercise in workforce reshuffling.

The move has left many affected employees fearing the long-term stigma of being let go under the guise of incompetence.

“Just because someone has met or exceeded expectations in the past doesn’t mean they will continue to meet those expectations,” a Meta spokesperson stated.

For workers who had consistently positive reviews, the rationale feels hollow. Some even claim they were given verbal assurances from their managers that they were in the clear, only to be caught off guard by their dismissal.

Collateral damage: High performers and workers on leave

One of the most vocal critics of the layoffs is Elana Reman Safner, a former product counsel at MetaWorks.

Safner, who was let go shortly after returning from maternity leave, took to social media to speak of Meta’s decision. She suggested the company targeted employees with recent leave histories.

“It is very hard to believe that – despite Meta indicating my expectations are prorated – I did not do enough,” she wrote.

Her frustration was palpable as she recounted her experience of being laid off despite never receiving a poor performance review.

“Meta laid me off yesterday in its ‘performance-based’ layoffs, and I was blindsided,” she shared.

Safner also used the moment to highlight what she would not miss about working at Meta, including the unpredictability of product decisions, the stress of the job, and what she described as CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s “newfound masculine energy” – a reference to his controversial remark that American companies needed to regain their “masculine edge”.

A culture of uncertainty and distrust

Meta’s restructuring comes as the company doubles down on artificial intelligence and virtual reality, aiming to expand its ranks of machine learning engineers.

Zuckerberg has made no secret of his desire to make the company leaner and more efficient, suggesting that workforce reductions could become an annual fixture.

Also Read: Buckle up! Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg warns of 'crazy year' ahead

However, the execution of this latest round has raised alarms about transparency, employee morale, and Meta’s evolving corporate culture.

The layoffs also coincide with the company’s quiet dismantling of its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programme, sparking speculation about sweeping changes being made in the current US political and economic climate.

But Meta’s handling of these layoffs serves as a cautionary tale for any business.

Performance-based terminations, when not executed with clarity and fairness, risk eroding trust in leadership and damaging employer reputation.

The ripple effect could extend beyond the affected employees, making top talent wary of joining a company where job security feels contingent on shifting corporate strategies rather than merit.

In a high-performance culture, accountability is key – but so is transparency.

As Meta forges ahead with its AI ambitions, the company may need to rethink how it defines and communicates performance expectations to avoid further undermining employee trust.

Otherwise, today’s survivors may well be tomorrow’s flight risks.