Thread regarding Target Corp. layoffs

No intel just insight from working at other big companies

I’ve been through many, many layoffs in my time in retail (20 years) and just sharing what I’ve learned having been in various roles at various levels including IC and leadership (dir+). I have also had really good friends and partners in HR and ops finance over my career who have been at various levels of need to know (and they share with me of course 😏).
THIS IS NOT INTEL - I do not have any information about TGT. This is more so sharing facts rather than feelings.
Simply put, the fiscal calendar is important when making layoff decisions. Layoffs are planned for the immediate expenses (the severance packages, outplacement programs, health insurance premiums etc) and forecasted long term savings.
You may be asking why Q4, well it’s because this is when most retail companies make their season or year. And because most of the prep work for the season is done and everything is execute mode so it doesn’t have as much impact on the immediate business.
You budget for these layoffs (yes, budget. So a layoff this big has been coming for a while). Once they are reviewed and approved by the board, goal is to get them in before Q4 so you can chip away at the expense drag that the layoff causes through revenue generation. You also want to hit the expenses in the current quarter, especially if quarterly earnings report is going to be rough. You want to minimize the impact to the next quarter.
Then long term the savings reflect in the new fiscal year and helps at a time when sales are generally slower.
In the simplest form you spend now to hopefully recoup some, protect the next quarter, and then save later in the new year.
In terms of WHO is impacted, it’s not an easy exercise and certainly not one taken lightly. I know that’s not easy to hear because it’s much easier to blame the proverbial big bad wolf, but I assure you no one in the general sense wants to be in this position. no one wants mass layoffs. Everyone would love to hire and build out their teams and be offering promotions and bonuses all the time.
Unfortunately, in addition to the sh---y macro financial environment, some poor decision making, some external factors, and some decisions made when the company was thriving (over hiring, overspending or over indexing into certain teams and initiatives) leads to this.
I’m grossly oversimplifying how the company got here but just keeping it simple.
So back to WHO. Well at the highest level (think SVP+) you would receive notice of expense reduction efforts (either a dollar amount or %) and they would look at where to cut and save (travel, discretionary spend etc) and then when there’s no more to save there, you move on to the teams. You look at where the work is currently, where it’s needed, where teams are doing similar work, or maybe work that is no longer value added, and decide where it would make sense to cut folks, where it would make sense to consolidate teams (for example if you have 3 directors with one direct report each, would it make sense to combine a team and create a team of 6 with only one director) or where it makes sense to have both a dir and a sr dir based on complexity, leadership necessity, size of team or where it might make sense to only have one over the other. At the end of the day you just have to do what’s best with the hand you’re dealt while trying to minimize the impact to operations, workload and yes, culture.
Because at the end of the day, there is a day after layoffs and morale of the teams is crucial to how you move forward (it’s kind of ironic but I digress).
I would venture to say with all of this in mind, many leaders have been quietly not backfilling roles, losing jobs through attrition (people quit and role is not rehired) or asking their leaders if there’s any work that could be stopped, moving resources from other teams where support is needed more and away from teams where there is maybe fat to trim in order to prevent or at least mitigate big cuts. But alas, sometimes the only way out is through.
Alright so who knows what, now? VPs probably knew changes were coming, and maybe could influence who and what in a general sense. Based on the posts on here, they just found out officially this week and they probably had to sign strict NDAs.
It’s also possible they walk into Monday or Tuesday and get handed a list of who and what so as to not have anything leak beforehand.
As for the people impacted…
The goal is to do this as fairly as possible.
Is it possible favorites are played when deciding who to keep? Sure.
Is it possible top performers were never at risk of losing their jobs? Sure.
Is it possible bottom performers were an easy first decision? Sure.
Is it possible a leader sees a name on a list and says “absolutely not” and a role is miraculously found for them? Sure.
Is it possible a leader sees someone moving elsewhere and says “hey actually it makes sense for this other person to go over there based on their skill and for this person to stay here”? Sure.
Will someone say “hey I actually want to retire so take me out and save someone else”? Sure.
Is it possible some people know where the bodies are hidden and so they must be protected? Sure. (I’m mostly kidding, but I’ve definitely experienced layoffs where people are asking “how are they still here” and we joke they must have compelling enough black mail to stay lol)
Will some people be promoted if it makes sense to the new org? Sure.
Will some people be demoted if it means that’s the only way they can have a role? Sure.
Is this an opportunity to finally separate someone who is so toxic and has managed to dodge every bullet until now? Sure.
Will people and leaders be moved, lose work or inherit work? Sure.
Is it possible they cut too deep and ask someone to come back? Sure.
Is it possible they didn’t cut deep enough and need to do it again? Sure.
All of this or none of this could happen (in my experience, it’s usually the latter).
At the end of the day it’s going to come down to the work, what makes sense long term for the company, how much it’s going to cost to keep or separate someone and how everyone fits into the larger strategy.
“Good” and “bad” people will go. Just as well as “good” and “bad” people will stay.
We will know eventually what happened in the “post mortem” (aka because we piece it together in here lol).
Anyways, the point of all of this is information however relevant it may be to this situation. Knowledge is power and although it might not give pause to your anxiety, at least you’ll go into the week with some understanding.


by
| 2822 views | | 4 replies (last October 26) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1k8f06qw7

4 replies (most recent on top)

Quality post that is going to make me feel more closure in either scenario, thank you. It’s my first layoff rodeo.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @aj+1k8f06qw7

@ab again this is not knowing anything and just my experience after years of working retail… the field org is the “next round”.
And if you care for my opinion, I believe Target has some good years, good ideas, good leaders, and good people left in them for sure :) believe me when I say, for however dire it feels here, I’ve seen much, much worse. One day I’ll write a book…

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ae+1k8f06qw7

Lot of it makes sense. Now it’s just a matter of waiting game. Also, is this all or is there round two? Will the economy recover enough for Target to revive ? Will the midterms have any impact? Will there be a recession?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ab+1k8f06qw7

One correction… in my experience ALL of this could happen vs none of it… for what it’s worth.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a2+1k8f06qw7

Post a reply

: