There is a lot of misinformation about how someone is chosen for RA. So I thought I’d clear up what I can without shooting myself in the foot. I am a highly experienced former HR Partner now at a FAANG.
Here’s the basic process.
1) IBM HQ, (HR, Finance, CEO), decide on a required headcount number.
2) These numbers are dictated to GM’s and their bosses, the SVP’s. There is push-back of course, but generally it is what it is. Just to be clear, the corporation dictates to the SVP’s what to do.
3) The senior teams then have to work out which part of their thousands of employees are to be affected, although HR has often already provided a selection of names/depts etc. HR VP’s have no say.
4) Once the numbers and targets are set, this gets pushed down to business VP level, which is where I would become involved, supporting that team. It’s very important to understand that the choices for layoff have come from way above their pay grade. They are simply charged with carrying it out. They might be told to get rid of fifty percent of the VP’s team. It then goes down to manger level, usually by department. They don’t get to argue or suggest taking the RA’s from somewhere else. If this manager has a team of ten, and he needs to get to five, the VP above him cannot say don’t do it. It is already decided.
5). The manager in the above example is supposed to get rid of fifty percent of his team. How does he choose? Or what if all the team is older, experienced, and expensive? See last sentence in point 4.
6) The manager needs to choose five out of ten in my example. How does he do this? He completes a performance grid, which the people being laid off (or kept), never ever see. This is totally separate from Checkpoint. Working with the HR Partner (people like me, assigned to a VP), they validate the names. The managers boss needs to approve. The HR Partner does not and will not talk to the affected employees.
7) These names are submitted at least 45 days before any layoff notification. Although names can change.
8) This list gets bumped all the way to Corporate HR and the RA office running the program.
9) This team then analyzes the lists to ensure they meet minimal legal standing. And, most importantly, to get around WARN, the names are subdivided into mini layoffs that obscure the location and numbers of layoffs. This is why you can never tell how many are let go. This is not how it used to be. A few years ago I would work with HR corporate to ensure the demographics of those RA’d were shared.
10) Finally, you are notified.
That’s about it.
As @3gfl+19IR0iXC pointed out, look up the Langley case in TX if you want to see in detail what happens. I take no pleasure in explaining this, as I was a loyal IBMer for many years, and I really loved working in HR, (it really can be an extremely rewarding career), but when my spouse left to go to a FAANG, I later decided to join them. But I have friends still at IBM and I hear what is happening. It saddens me. Someone posted here that HR was “hunting” it’s own employees. That’s the correct way to say it. Looking back, I see what we were asked to do went against everything I believed IBM and HR should stand for.