Is it id--tic to layoff good talent when you have the $, just to hit a specific number of employees? The ringmaster at the circus operates this way. Clown show?
8 replies (most recent on top)
If the talent was any good, they would actually exceed the revenue per employee target easily. The fact is that OP think's it's an id--tic metric just shows how worthless they are in the organization.
@ax In 2016, after the ACT which laid off ~15000 people, one of the snakes was promoted to MTL because the previous MTL was laid off. First thing he did, he called a meeting and opened with: "...now that all the incompetent people are gone..."
I wonder if that snake is still employed there now. It is highly likely though since the Intel culture tends to reward backstabbers and politicians. Also, rewarding FUMU -> Fu-k Up, Move Up.
Bunch of d-mb headed MBA managers like Sweater boy running the company to the ground. ShitTel will be sold in pieces soon.
You should hear what the say when they think you not in the room. They say “Any Monkey can do those jobs”. Until all the monkeys are gone and it’s too late for humility. FU-K Intel!
Classic Corporate Culture: The executives fire all the people who do the work and sit around wondering why nothing is getting done.
@a4 apparently not according to our leader ROI per HC is correct. Yikes
OP, what does your statement have to do with revenue per employee? Show me a specific metric that breaks down revenue generated to a specific employee.The sales teams would be able to come the closest since they track for commissions.
Yes, that would be a completely id--tic way to manage your headcount - being successful in individual markets requires different fixed costs that don't scale on employee count - you position yourself for the business you want, not the business you currently have.