We lost a couple of great teammates. Neither makes any sense if they were going based on performance, so I guess for once the leadership didn't lie. This was all about numbers.
6 replies (most recent on top)
Layoffs are never about performance. It’s about cutting randomly with age especially so nobody can sue.
@a9 agreed, leveling often makes zero sense and there are L5s often with more complex and larger desks than a lot of L6s in certain areas. When questioned, L7s will say things like “that’s just how we’re organized”.
@a7 I've seen (and experienced) the reverse: where L4s were doing the work of L5s, and dare I say L6s... with L6s taking all the credit. It's a messed up hierarchy and the gratitude is never there. Good riddance.
In my area, all the L7s were let go were doing the work of an L5 or even an L4. I see that as a failure of their leaders to properly organize work and help their senior team members develop themselves.
Mass layoffs of 1000+ people are never about performance. How could they be? They keep the information at a very high level where the people making the decisions know little or nothing about the people they're firing other than a job description.
There's plenty of posts here saying that only the SVPs knew who was getting the axe before yesterday. Maybe that goes down to the VP level... but almost certainly not any lower.
It's a bit of a double edged sword of course. It's not personal.... but then again you might lose some key people that nobody knew were key people.
When have layoffs at Target ever been performance based? It would be near impossible to have actual performance based layoffs because it would require L6 level to be involved and this information would leak very quickly.