Ask HN: I lost my job

156 points by uvw ↗ HN
About a week ago I was laid off. In 15+ years I am working as developer, I was never considered for a layoff. I am soul searching for a week now, and finally I got over my anger, disappointment and anxiety and ready to move on.

I believe it was nothing to do with my performance of skills as a developer. I believe I was expected to perform as a leader on top of solving problems, writing applications and my lack of leadership skills made me not worth my paycheck. In retrospect, higher ups did mention in passing about an year ago about how I need to speak up in meetings etc.

I think I don't know how to be a leader at a workplace.

So I come here being humbled. If you are a leader/team leader/c-suite people/managers please enlighten me. Or point me towards videos, books, ted talks, internet articles. I want to learn and be a better person and also don't want to repeat the mistakes in a new job.

135 comments

[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 95.1 ms ] thread
First and foremost - it's not about you. Millions of people are getting laid off daily now due to the exceptional circumstances.

It's ok to feel down for some time, but it's important to understand the broad picture and not take this personally - regardless of what you were told.

Now, regarding leadership resources, I would recommend to start with the following (in this order):

Moneyball (movie), books: The Goal, The Phoenix Project, The Mythical Man-Month, The Hard Thing About Hard Things, The Culture Code and in-between those - various Simon Sinek videos.

If you read this far, you should be able to continue finding materials on your own from here ;)

Best of luck!

Reading books doesn't pay you rent.
Without context, it's hard to know the real situation.

I was laid off at the end of February. To make a long story short, the product wasn't selling well and the company had to cut costs.

In my case, my manager gave me a heads up months in advance. If you're still in touch with your manager or people you worked with, try to find out the real story.

---

Think about some of the excellent experienced people you learned from early in your career. You now need to be just like them.

---

Career-wise, what kind of "leadership" is expected from someone with 15+ years experience? A lead does the most important designs, sets the technical direction, mentors other developers, takes part in bug triages, works on the most difficult parts of a product, and interviews candidates. Sometimes the title of "architect" is used.

You can also be a manager, or a consultant who can get in and get things done.

But, someone with 15+ years of experience isn't just a coder getting a bigger paycheck than someone with 3 years of experience. Your career lessons need to rub off on the younger developers. Otherwise, your large paycheck just turns into a giant target compared to your cheaper peers.

Not everybody is suited to be in a "leadership" position and that is OK. If you prefer solving technical problems rather than people problems, you aren't going to be a good fit for a "leadership" position.

Having said that, you do need to realize that the "glass ceiling" on developer positions tends to be lower than on management (aka. "leadership") positions. There often is lip service saying the "technical ladder" is parallel and equal to the "management ladder", but it isn't in my experience. Fact of life.

Consequently, if you prefer solving technical problems rather than people problems, you will be trading off money for happiness.[1] In my book, that is a trade-off I'm happy to make. In fact, I've deliberately chosen to stay in the technical realm rather than "leadership" realm for 35 years now. Especially early on in my carrier, my managers pushed me towards "leadership" roles and I let them know I was not interested. While I have and will take on a leadership role out of necessity due to circumstances in a project, I've always made a point of reverting to the technical work when the crisis is over.

I have less money but more happiness. That doesn't work for everyone, but it works for me. Sounds like it would work for you.

[1] There are people that enjoy being in a leadership position. "Rands in Repose" https://randsinrepose.com/archives/managing-nerds/ is a good example of that. I'm happy for him and I'm happy for my managers who enjoy being in a leadership position because that means I can focus and satiate my inner nerd.

I can give you one tip.

--Over a period of many years I found out that you can't please everyone and you can't be everybody's friend. So don't be afraid to speak up. Get informed, make a decision and speak up. You may be right or you may be wrong but follow thru and lead by example.

Think about this and act on it.

It can be a delicate balance if you're not consistently outspoken. I've found the most success in trying to provide new proposals instead of critisim/feedback on others. No one minds an idea that sparks discussion, it's pretty rare that anything is a "waste of time". The reason I led in with "if you're not outspoken" is that if you're typically quiet and start giving out bad but discussion sparking ideas, it will probably lead to office drama. If you always give your opinions then people will get over it immediately and meetings will be more productive. No one wants to talk to someone who seems to only critique things, but lots of people want to hear new ideas.
First off, this is about the world taking a downturn than your performance. Rather than focusing on traditional leadership, focus more on listening and teaching. The higher ups usually want someone who actively listens, asks good/productive questions, and is able to teach the younger team members how to execute and avoid the mistakes you've learned over 15+ years.
It's really not. I saw the signs since early January. They were waiting for me to finish a project that I was working on. This was way before people in US got serious about the Pandemic.
was this a contract position, what company is this?
Not that it helps, but the world was beginning to take a downturn before the pandemic.
(Can't stop thinking about this thread)

> In retrospect, higher ups did mention in passing about an year ago about how I need to speak up in meetings etc.

That's a critical point. If you have 15 years experience, even if you don't have a "leadership" title, you are expected to demonstrate some leadership in meetings.

First: In the meeting, you should be able to discuss tradeoffs, explain why certain things are easier, safer, or more dangerous. You should be able to give context and have an opinion. Your opinions need to be fair and unbiased, or you should be able to point out that you're biased towards a particular approach. You're in the meeting for your experience, both career experience, and (if you've been in the job for awhile,) experience with the product(s).

Second, and this is more critical, but harder to do: You need to be able to stop bad meetings. In some cases, this is a matter of just telling someone that their 20 person invite list is too long. In other cases, you need to interrupt people and force them to make their point or move on; or you need to interrupt a meeting to politely excuse half of the people in the room who don't need to be there.

Yes, it's technically management's job to stop bad meetings, but it's also your job too. Stopping bad meetings is everybody's job, but it falls on the most experienced people on a team to lead by setting an example.

This is really great advice. But it's important to know your audience too. I'm a fairly (very) blunt person. I'd follow this advice to the letter with most of my bosses and deal with fallout when necessary. At least that's my go to method.

But I've found that at times it's better to work within the system a little bit like. IMing my boss if we're in the meeting to check with him first.

You need to be able to stop bad meetings

This is a really bad advice, especially in this context. Don't annoy or confront your coworkers. Tell your manager if you feel like stopping some meetings. It's strictly their job, and they will be happy to step in and do that. Besides, any meeting of 20 people should have a manager present.

It really depends on the company. At every company I've worked at, either the company was too small to be able to invite that many people (it would basically be an all-hands) or the management was the ones planning these meetings.

In my experience, the way to handle this is usually a quick Slack conversation with the meeting organizer starting with "hey, I saw you invited all of team X to the meeting - do they all need to be there or just Y". The response is almost always "I don't know anyone on that team so I just invited them all", and by initiating the conversation you are offering to help.

That's the point. Doing this effectively means interrupting the meeting without annoying coworkers. Everyone stuck in an unproductive meeting wants to do the rest of the items on their list. But no one feels that they have the authority to act as a circuit breaker.
Valid point, but I wouldn’t be so prescriptive. It’s also about understanding other variables — the culture of your workplace, the particular meeting/situation — and calibrating your approach accordingly. Of course, easier said than done.
The point of being a leader is you don't need to go through your manager when someone's wasting your team's time.
> Stopping bad meetings is everybody's job

Maybe in a perfect world, but this is heavily context-dependent. Ignore office culture/politics at your own risk.

I'm constantly in awe of my manager's ability to fix a bad meeting in real-time. It's amazing. And he's never even slightly rude about it.
Any anecdotes as to how they do it?
Hard to say any specific anecdotes for how he does it. It's mostly in attitude; how he says things rather than what he says. You can tell from his attitude that when he challenges you, it's not to put you down or exert authority, it's because he genuinely wants everyone to come to the strongest conclusion. (Even if most people think they also act this way, probably they don't, or they don't express it that well).

There will be a discussion that starts meandering, going down rabbit holes, and somehow he'll find the perfect question to ask, which is always a very simple one, to set everyone back on target. Sometimes I don't think people even realize this is happening.

The reason it's hard to explain is because it comes across as an innate character trait, a skill that's just core to his personality, which is why it's so hard to emulate.

What makes a meeting bad? Is it getting off-topic, non productive, that sort of thing? If so, wouldn't it make more sense to re-orient the group than to stop it?

Stopping a meeting seems like a massive waste of resources, especially when you've already gathered the folks that can fix it.

A good meeting should generally be transmitting information effectively or driving to a decision. If a meeting is unable to do that, it should be stopped.

Stopping a meeting in the middle of the planned duration is a bit dramatic, but if it’s clear after 15 minutes the group collectively doesn’t have the information needed to make a decision, its worth stopping.

I’m currently spending a quarter of my day or more in status meetings of various types. I will absolutely tell people I’m dropping (which is a the “lite” version of stopping a meeting) if they stop providing value.

Sometimes the meeting turns into a discussion among 2-3 people with a large audience, sometimes the discussion turns circular where everyone just repeats themselves.

> when you've already gathered the folks that can fix it.

Far too many people gather the wrong people, and stopping to excuse people is critical.

Bad meetings usually don't have agendas. Don't attend a meeting without an agenda.
don't sweat it, just leetcode bro
One of the important aspects of leadership is learning how to listen. You said management mentioned in passing that you needed to speak up. People rarely come right out and say things. It tends to be oblique, in passing, casual references. You will have to learn to pick up on those cues, read body language, pay attention to unspoken signs.

I know that leadership can be taught, but I don't think it can be taught while you're not already in a leadership position, or at least a simulation of it, i.e., hands-on classes. Olivia Fox Cabane has a some YouTube videos on Charisma that I think would be good to watch. She's a damn good communicator.

Take responsibility for the actions of the people you lead, do the things you want them to do. Your actions will speak far louder than the words you say: lead by example and all that.

Question - Do you never speak up in meetings? Or you only speak up in certain types of meetings with certain types of people?

Some people can be good leaders and speak up in meetings where they are talking about an area they are comfortable in. For example, a senior or lead engineer does an excellent job speaking up and leading in an engineering meeting - but in a room with a bunch of business people they don't really have anything to add so they don't say anything.

I only ask this because it's important to remember context. Sometimes people are in expected to be leaders in a situation that does not fit them. In other situations they can do well. Just something to keep in mind.

As for the layoffs...don't take it personally. If you were a good developer and your management was too short-sighted to realize you might fit better in a different role, that's not your fault.

I know this is going to sound like a stupid question, but how tall are you? How healthy (e.g. weight, posture, etc.) do you look. Do people consider you good looking?

Sadly, your physical presence makes a difference in how others start perceiving you and will probably dictate what approach you take to establish yourself. A lot of self-help leadership books seem to be written by guys who are at or over 6ft tall.

It doesn't mean you cannot be perceived as good leader without a leading man presence, but you do have to work at it differently. Advice for a classically dashing 6'2" guys often doesn't work for 5'4" women. You need to impress the people making that decisions and they often have the look. It sucks, but we cannot see other people's souls. Sorry for your loss, it sucks and is a bummer but don't let it break you, its just their opinion and probably isn't close to the truth.

Health, physiology, and beauty is part of leadership, but we don't know much about this person.
None of those things are intrinsic to leadership, but they certainly inform characteristics that are useful to being seen as a leader.
I agree with you, these qualities are not intrinsic to leadership. But subconsciously (or perhaps consciously), others see someone who is healthy, vibrant, and well-groomed and, knowing nothing else about the person, they will infer that this person is in control of their dietary habits, fitness, and hygiene. It's easier for someone with the appearance of health to convince others that they are a leader than someone who appears sickly or behaves slovenly.

Again though, like you said, it's not intrinsic. No one would argue that Churchill was not an excellent leader, even if they did disagree with his politics or his methods.

Of course none of it will affect the abilities of an actual leader, but the perception problem cannot be dismissed. Not having the above doesn't mean you cannot be taken seriously as a leader, but it does change the approach.

A person will get real damn frustrated if all the advice they get works for one segment of the population and doesn't work for them. That can cause all kinds of self doubt and depression. You need to be able to honestly assess how other people perceive you and work on strategy, skills, and maybe some changes in physical activity to have a good outcome. I just hate to see people get depressed when they shouldn't.

Body physique is the hardest thing to change of all the aspects, so if one has this problem, you need to focus on other aspect.

Napoleon Bonaparte is short, but he was not only a leader, he was a conqueror. Tyrion Lannister, even though fictional, is another example, learn the actor's performance, how he use his face and voice.

Learn psychology and interpersonal interaction, think of it as problem solving using human for human problems instead of your usual tool of choosing.

Learn how to command with charisma. Use visual, sound, and tactile as optimum as you can. For those who see persuasion and manipulation as immoral, get rid of it. As long as your intention are good, you'll use those weapons carefully.

Napoleon wasn’t short for his time. That was propaganda spread by his enemies.
5’4” (almost!) woman here. What you’ve said is unfortunately all too true but I have a hard time advising someone to act/present themselves in a way simply to conform to the expectations others have set based on their appearance.

Just be yourself. If other people think you’re too [whatever] for someone who looks like you then fuck them. By catering to the stereotypes we only perpetuate the stereotypes.

Leaders come in all shapes, sizes, and personalities.

I was a developer for about 11 years before I started in leaderships positions "by force" (in a fast growing startup). For me as a technical person, being a manager is very difficult, there are a lot of subtleties of people interaction got completely lost to me several times... One time I "gave a rise" to a guy and the way I put it he felt I was conditioning the rise to something else... it was subtle and I did not know until after a year later while talking to him.

People relationships are difficult. Then there is the "game" to play as part being part of a company (once you are at the manager/director/vp level, you have to understand that you represent the company to your peers. I have something very interesting happen to me, one week I was a developer, peer of my colleagues, we joked a lot and had a lot of fun interactions at work. Next week I become "director of Engineering", become their boss, and the interaction changed completely (it was not something I did, it literally changed from one day to another).

Now, on the current state of things, I would not search a lot to what the company told you, regarding why they let you go. At a previous startup I was, at some point we had to make cuts, and all the VPs and C levels sat down in a meeting looking at each of our teams, and then each team had to decide to cut 2 people. It was ruthless, and every manager had to explain to the person why they were let go...

The best thing would be, if you had a more friendly relation with your manager, that now, after the fact, you can have a informal call with him and ask him, what do you think you could have done better in general to avoid being affected by the layoffs in your company.

Wtf dude.

Take a breath, everyone is getting laid off. Don't blame yourself, that's a road to hell you don't want to go down right now.

I was laid off and they hired 2 college grads.

It's clear I was getting paid too much.

Yep - this was my gut feeling also.

It isn't a bad time to reflect and improve yourself but I wouldn't take it personally.

From your OP, I'd say...

- grow a much thicker skin

- form and share your opinion more often

- actively seek out other leaders at your level or above to see how you can improve _something_ (this is often just watercooler/gossip for leaders/managers but it is part of the game)

- take a more active part in guiding the team processes

If you really just feel comfortable as a developer then just guide the development process - help create/iterate on/enforce style guides and other development pieces. You can do this with very little people leadership skills but still have a visible impact on an organization.

They sound like terrible managers.

If they are unable to evaluate your actual work, the only way they can evaluate you is based on your verbal contributions during a meeting.

As they are clearly unable to coach you, they are probably relying on you to coach the younger workers.

Just realize that each manager is looking for a different set of things. Some managers would be perfectly happy with you quietly writing applications well.

Nobody knows how to be a manager, and while some with encouragement can learn, some people either don't have the inclination or correct temperament.

I personally would never push someone into management or push the person out if that person was happiest as a individual contributor.

The world needs more makers, not more managers.

All the best!

I think I agree with this response the most. Even if this person didn't feel much like being in a leadership position, that's still 15 years of real-world experience and accumulated talent they just threw away. Unless this person's code quality was somehow declining in spite of that, they just lost a huge resource.

It makes me wonder if the OP got their lines crossed about the lack of leadership thing being a significant part of the reason they got fired and/or there's a significant part of the story not being told here, like maybe the company is being pummeled by the effects of the pandemic and had to trim some of their more expensive employees (of which someone with 15 years of experience is likely to be) or something.

Yeah whatever happened here, the communication from this person's leadership was bad. I'm not trying to vilify them—maybe they had their reasons—but OP is clearly confused about why they were laid off and how (if) it could have been avoided. If I were going to fire someone with 15 years' experience, I would really try to give several clear warnings and actions leading up to it, assuming that was my actual reasoning.
"Fired" and "laid off" are two different things entirely. OP was laid off, not fired, and I think it's reasonable to assume that the pandemic was the immediate cause of having to cut staff. There's really no way to give several clear warnings about that.
If that's the case, that's what should have been made clear. OP clearly doesn't think that's what happened.
We're all just guessing based on partial evidence, but every time I've mentioned that people should talk up more in meetings, it has had nothing to do with their leadership skills. It's always been as part of a discussion about how they need to try to understand the bigger picture. Being able to describe your designs, and being able to articulate alternate designs, is a very important part of software development. If OP is the kind of dev who gets lost and can't contribute when the discussion becomes abstract, that's an important skill to be lacking.

And let's be honest, lots of people with 15 years experience really have 1 year of experience 15 times. It's really hard to guess at the situation based on no evidence, but I can easily see both sides here.

trial & error >> book knowledge on this topic, IMO. Get your reps in: - start a business - teach a live online coding course
(comment deleted)
Sorry to hear that, but it looks like you're taking this as a growth opportunity. It seems like your management failed you somewhat - management is not easily learned from books, much better to have mentors and people modeling the behavior expected in a role like that.

Before you start down this road, I'd ask yourself if you want to be a manager. You can lead, based on your experience, but that doesn't mean you need to have people reporting directly to you. I was a manager in an IT group, and while everyone liked me (I'm a likable guy!) I wasn't particularly good at the managing part. It made me miserable to not be good at my job and I'm much happier consulting/contracting now.

I think as soon as you remove yourself from the equation it becomes a lot easier to know how to "be a leader" IMO.

Some people take offense when others seem to be "encroaching" on their territory.

When looking at a problem and a room of people trying to address that problem draw the line between the ROOM and the PROBLEM. A lot of times the way people speak about or address things is by first drawing a line between the people in the room, and then draw another line between the room and the problem.

there is no real context here, but

Leader != "I need to speak up in meetings"

The problem here might be more general, not communicating enough. You might be technically competent but there's a problem when the level of communication isn't high enough. Countless problems (an unnecessary development) can be avoided through high bandwidth communication. Even when it might be unjustified, if people feel like people aren't communicating, then they wonder if perhaps problems are getting created that could be avoided simply because that person isn't speaking up. It leads to frustration. This may not be applicable to your situation, but I thought I'd throw that out there

Protip (for when the jobs situation improves): change jobs every 2 years or so. That way people won't have any preconceived (and largely incorrect) notions about you. It's useful to start from a fresh sheet of paper from time to time. It also helps with getting better pay, since you can't be treated as a piece of furniture and you always get market rate, which tends to go up over time. Or at least it did for the past 2 decades.
And you also experience different companies. Not all companies are the same. A job title that is a nightmare in one place can be a pleasure in another. Sometimes you question yourself because you dont have recent experiences to compare it to and once you do, you may realize it was simply a bad place to work at. When you’ll look back at this you’re going to somehow be grateful it happened this way. This will open you to new experiences. Granted, you’re gonna be forced out of uour comfort zone. Good luck to you and don’t forget to trust in yourslef
Instead of guessing or mind-reading, I encourage you to ask your former co-workers (peers and supervisors) directly for concrete examples where you didn't perform or suggestions for areas to improve on.

Reality testing is critical. Ask them out to lunch or coffee and frame it as seeking their thoughts as a means to improvement, not bitterness about the divorce.

Executive leadership is directive, actionable, factual, simple. It's not about taking direction-- at least not overtly-- it's about giving it. You already sound like a great person. Some great people also are leaders and executives but I find as often that is not the case. Great people who learn the executive mindset can be truly extraordinary leaders. They'll ask the question on everyone's mind, and then outline a simple plan to solve it. They will break the ice in a group, rather than wait for it to be broken. They will concede as much of a point as necessary to establish and maintain their credibility. People will trust them not to always be brilliant, but to do the right thing competently and on time.

We all have some work to achieve that kind of stature, but from your question I also sense the people you reported to were not a good fit for what I perceive to be your likely leadership style. Don't take it personally, they dont have all the answers.

Don’t change anything now. I’m not saying « don’t change », but I’m saying emergencies are a bad time to evolve on character traits, particularly because you may be believing an excuse that they used to fire you, when in fact you were just redundant or your boss arrived late at the meeting where they decided of the people to fire.

Secondly, I once asked your question and a friend answered that most managers land their position by necessity for the company. They were here when the team grew. Or created their company, so they had to manage it. Most managers just deal with what is happening. Most people don’t know what they are doing, or why they have been selected. Sometimes there is no rationale. So don’t sweat it too much, because being relaxed and easy to manage plays a good part in career success.

For me it was much easier to be a manager than be an employee, because as an employee you are expected to compete and establish your presence (such as speaking up in meetings); As a manager you have entirely different incentives, it was way more intuitive for me.

Unfortunately a lot of the comments are mixing together leadership with management. These are not the same thing. Some of the best technical leaders I have had the pleasure to work with were not managers.

As a developer gets older and has more experience they are definitely expected to show leadership skills. While this can look different for everybody, usually it looks like some combination of:

1. Ability to mentor others 2. Ability to be the "expert" on the team. A go to developer for design and architecture advice 3. Ability to be the liaison with other development teams, product management, or sometimes upper management

Unfortunately it is rare that you can be an experienced develop er and not be expected to show leadership in these areas, along with your development work.

So where do you draw the line between team leader and manager? Team size? Amount of liaison with non-technical folks? Can you be a manager and a technical lead?
Manager is a title. Leader is a set of behaviors.

Most managers are not leaders. At minimum, they approve expense reports and check the boxes. Better ones know how to operate in an organization and detect & solve operational problems.

Leaders take a position and make their case and defend it effectively. They grow and support the people around them. And they try to improve themselves along the way by learning from the people above, below, and parallel to them. They have the trust of people around them because they earned it and reflect it.

You can be none of the above, one of the above, or - and this is special - both of the above.

And of course, none of that is static. People can improve and grow at any time.

technical lead on a project is also determined sometimes by other factors - for example:

developer longest on project by a significant factor is likely to be the leader by default.

developer likely to be on project longer than more experienced developers may be deferred to as leader (at least I often do if I am consulting for a short period and a less experienced guy from the company is on the project for the next year I defer to how he wants to do things)

Often leadership is just going to the most experienced because of course they know how to make their case and defend it.

> technical lead on a project is also determined sometimes by other factors - for example:

You're arguing 2 very different concepts with the GP, he made the case (quite elegantly) that a leader is a set of behaviors and you're ignoring all of that and stating "nope, it's a job title".

I'd recommend you re-read their comment.

I was going to respond at length to this but I realized I must be in some bad mood because it started to become rude.

As regards rereading comments I suggest you reread mine with the consideration that the phrases "leader by default" or "deferred to as leader" would indicate someone who is not leader by title, yet has also not necessarily demonstrated a lot of leadership qualities to get the position (as indicated by the rest of the comment).

They are leaders not by title or nature, but leaders by necessity and pragmatism.

Yes, you're right, there's a possible third category of leader by necessity but it could be argued that this is a subtype of leader by title which is why I didn't understand your comment on first read.

Maybe leader by "position" or "circumstance" is a better term as it covers the situations like "most experienced in a team" even if that experience is only a few months more than the person they're helping and even if they don't have the title to match.

I still agree with the parent commenter that distinguished between _true_ leaders and those who've been placed or defaulted into the role.

Exactly this. As you become a senior dev and up, you have to start having an impact beyond the code you write personally, and the 3 areas you listed are perfect examples.

It doesn’t mean you have to stop coding, or become a people manager, but you do need to start spending a decent amount of time helping the team improve and make good decisions. This does mean less coding, but there can still be a solid amount of coding time.

Like, OP, it sucks that you lost your job, especially during this crazy COVID time. But if you can learn to develop your leadership skills, it’ll be a big help to your career long term. I’d say the biggest thing is to try to keep the needs of the business in mind, and to realize that very often you can make a bigger impact by guiding/mentoring others than you can by just doing it yourself.

and this is why we can only upvote once, otherwise I would give you a million points. you hit the nail on the head. there is more to be a leader than just running to the frontline and getting things done. if you are unapproachable then others cannot learn from you, how can you hand off the skills you've acquired?
Sorry to hear that, I have been in your position in the past, I know how it feels. Learn charisma, learn social dynamics, learn how to communicate with people properly. It makes a huge difference. And it is a learnable, like coding or riding a bike. There are many great books, you can start with this classic https://www.vitalsmarts.com/resource/crucial-conversations-b.... Let me know if you need more info.
Well look, if it was a layoff it probably wasn't personal. It's a reflection on the economic conditions. Granted, you weren't one of the ones chosen to keep, but that should be viewed as: how can you make yourself indispensable? not that you don't bring value.

I don't know you enough to tell you what you need to do, but if you have 15 years of experience: you probably have useful things to share with the less experienced. Most people want to learn, they want mentors, so if that isn't happening maybe a tiny bit of reflection on how to be more welcoming. But man, it's a layoff, don't kick yourself over it.