Layoffs are NOT performance based.

Let's be realistic, as most layoffs are never performance-based.

Most managers have non-arm's-length people on their team or within org. These people will always be saved first. One's comfort employees, family, friends, and people of similar beliefs.

People whom the managers can trust to agree with them and are never on the offensive will also be saved. These are basically the pets of the team or org.

Most managers will save lifers. Attrition at this time will not get back-filled; thus, it's best to keep those who are likely to stick around.

The individuals whom the managers are afraid of or individuals who aren't afraid to speak up against them will be the first to be let go. Some of those have a lot of skills and do a lot of work, but managers with less confidence in themselves will place these people on the cut list.

People who have no relationship with the manager will also be on the cut list. Performance doesn't come into play. There's no guilt in placing them on this list.

Good management knows that layoffs are not good for the future of a company. It fixes the finance books temporarily during financial hardship.

Comment! It's anonymous!

13 replies (most recent on top)

@ey I feel for ya. In my case, they didn't give a reason and I didn't ask. I didn't see the point. I knew it wasn't performance based, and any answer they gave would be either deceptive or an outright lie.

@OP This is exactly so called bureaucracy...supposed to be cut off by CPM as said by LBT but never happens in reality.

I was promoted right before being laid off. No idea what criteria they used for this decision, but it obviously wasn't job performance.

In the one-on-one layoff meeting I was told I scored low on my skills matrix but my managers couldn't even tell me where I scored low or how I can make improvements in my future career. Infact they told me the week prior there might be some changes to who I was reporting too but that my job shouldn't be cut. The entire team was shocked because I was very productive in my daily tasks and juggling all the extras thrown my way. I guess this is what happens when you have 5 managers in less than 9 months. I'm sure they used low performance as the general cop out but almost everyone I know who was let go these past couple weeks were hard, dedicated, efficient workers. But at the end of the day we are all just a number to the higher ups.

Definiety not performance, atleast not in our module

3 PMs that I knew in the bogus oneAPI got sent home today.

Sachin didn't seem to do much and he didn't appear for his long NEX tenure, and received a promotion.

So perhaps we don't understand how performance is measured at different levels.

Absolutely not performance based I have proof in my team.
Goes like this manager selects his favorites and cronies he wants to keep. Then creates a skill matrix that will ensure that those people will come out on top. Not the actual skills to do the job
It’s a fix!

Are the layoffs mostly performance based this time? How was the skill matrix evaluated?

I don't believe OP was a high performer.

Not from what I'm seeing so far at Ronler. Most I'm aware of are the lower performers and problem people. Intel got it right this time.

@OP agree! There is so much nepotism. It’s not performance based it’s who’s a$$ you’ve kissed.

@OP Okay

Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

Layoffs are NOT performance based.

13 replies (most recent on top)

Post a reply