How is it determined who gets laid off? Do you have any say in the matter - considering that you should know better than anyone who deserves to stay and who needs to go - or is the decision solely on some number cruncher high above? Judging by the people who get laid off, I'm thinking it's the second one...
15 replies (most recent on top)
In my team they actual let the two younger people with senior titles go over principles
In most rounds your direct manager has some input but many people cut on 7/10 and going forward this won’t be the case. Too many cuts and moves. Those that stay will come from Directors and up.
Hi @ugg+15XHEhwl - thanks for the post. I have a question that I would like to ask. As a manager, did you actually recommend who would be cut, or what you actually did was to provide an honest stack ranking of your direct reports and it was up to upper management and HR to make the final list?
Eeny, meeny, miny, mo.
In IT and Labs the higher cost L2's with pensions are always the first to go.
Agree with @edb+15XHEhwl about this round. Meat being cut with the fat. Yes there are people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time but know of quite a few in previous rounds that were coasting. Some forget about the monitoring going on. If you have a crew you probably need to leave your office occasionally. Don’t sign into the systems for a week from Disneyworld. And if you still support the few dsl customers probably not good. Older technology products are definitely being looked at. The War and Peace M&P’s no longer carry much weight. Some of these cuts are being made based on future chips falling into place which will be problematic in the future. Had a friend move to Mobility. Said the pressure was intense to meet deadlines. Get it done or get written up. That’s probably the new world.
I am in Mobility. L2. I was an AM managing people for quite a while but don't anymore. We don't have L1's, at least in my part of the business. If you think your AM or L2 had no input or say so (some may tell you that) as to who beneath them got axed, you are sorely mistaken. The Director (L3) needs that input from L2 more than anything else. You hear a lot of folks grousing about "s—ing up", etc., some of that may be true. But many need to take a look in the mirror. It's not "s—ing up" to avoid being a pain in your boss's backside, do your job well, and hence maybe make their job a bit easier. If you're someone that your boss has to spend a lot of time dealing with, covering for, or smoothing things over with other folks or organizations because you somehow ticked them off...there is no quicker way to end up on the surplus list. I know, as these are the folks that I always picked. No brainer. And when your AM tells you they had no input...they're lying.
It does seem that the L2 supervising managers, and L# and maybe even L4 did not have input or simply were not consulted. And now hearing who got cut and who didn't, it sure does look like high level dart throwing. I can assure you, that the friends and family crew, were not cut. Far more L2 50+ people were, but that's expected based on how large that biggest segment of workforce .
I agree pretty much with @xit.
There is no actual level-setting done between organizations. That means, if a VP has 10 directors (for example) and needs to lose 20 people, he or she will simply ask each director for 2 people.
If one of his/her directors has formed a team that knocks it out of the park all the time, exceeds expectations, always delivers on time, etc., it doesn't really matter. The VP has no comprehension about how to compare people under two separate directors. So the "peanut butter gets spread evenly" between all his/her directors.
Only at the second-to-lowest level (say, L2 supervisor managing L1 managers) is there any semblance of selection criteria going on. And for some of those above-mentioned supervisors who have really good teams, it comes down to "which two of your limbs don't you need anymore?"
AT&T, sadly, neither awards achievement nor punishes incompetence. It's generally luck of the draw.
Your manager has direct input with a stack rank document for their team that gets submitted.
I agree with the post by HW1 at the top of the list here but with caveats on this round. I think that was they way the cuts were done in the past. To some degree, that is probably still the case but from what I understand there is alot more going on this time.
The external former Clearwire CEO is leading the cost cutting and benchmarking charge (AT&T costs vs. competitors). They are also reviewing the top products that are driving revenues/profits and loooking to eliminate those that do not. Leadership are getting major pressure to cut these out. Legacy and lagging products will be eliminated over time and the personal who support these systems will go (along with the systems in due time).
Also, Lots of oursourcing of development work, Cloud apps and more. Lastly and related, if your working on anything not funded....you are at risk or a gonner.
It is how well you s— up.
Total numbers/percentages are given to each VP for people they have to cut. Normally a rating and ranking process then determines who is first to go. The only time in my experience that didn't really happen was when we given lists by CRE (corporate real estate) of folks that were not close to collaboration zones for 1st quarter 2019 layoffs. So a VP can then tell his AVP and Directors what percentage they each have to cut. Those Directors and AVPs do the rating and ranking. If those AVPs and Directors have supervisors (Associate Directors or Area Managers) those Associate Directors and Area Managers do the rating and ranking for their folks. In my experience, it always works like that. Then those names are provided to HR, and HR includes in the business case and sends up the food chain. The process takes about 2 months, this time they tried to expedite it some. If folks have told their directors or supervisors they want to retire any way, the supervisors and directors have freedom to include that person at the bottom of their ranking to make sure they are selected in the layoff.
It is very clear this is just a number system! The number systems seems to be embraced by what we can now call a weak unknowing leadership team. What else would you expect from this NON LEADERSHIP management team. Still too many L3, L4, L5 left that are totally clueless.
L2 Managers did not have any input in who their affected direct reports would be on 7/10 surplus. Managers were merely a pass through of the information sent to them and then bound by duty to inform those affected by the lay-off.