Thread regarding Adidas layoffs

Can we audit the number of HR we have and their qualifications? Are they the right people to create or challenge future org models? And if BG doesn’t have to listen to them, maybe reduce the team by half?

HR is a joke. We have Grim reaper (CHRO) who will do anything that BG asks as she is in no position to question anyone given the new talentless faces we see in HR leadership- in Europe and markets combined. FairPlay is an embellishment- good to have on paper but doesn’t work. Toxic people are reported time after time, no action is taken and HR covers most of their tracks. And then when things go out of control, we pay big exit packages to offenders but before that we reward them with bigger roles and benefits.
I know the economy is bad, but talent is always needed. Please try your luck, don’t stay in this toxic environment to lose your sanity and worse- become toxic yourself.

Leadership at an M1 level is a joke. Tech people don’t know tech, business people don’t understand business. It’s a miracle competition hasn’t chewed it up so far.

Who else thinks this is only the beginning and teams that are not in-scope now might be in a future round to continue getting the company back in a better shape. I’d recommend everyone to continue sharpening their skills, have those CVs up-to-date and don’t fear the hard reality of business. You shouldn’t take things for granted at adi

AMS made some really good people redundant in October last year. The bad ones got to stay because the most rotten one of them all got a promotion

Low performers will never keep their emotions in check when laid off. Its their lack of self-confidence surfacing.

Then again, the decision to lay off from HZO does not make much sense. It's the AMS office where incompetence is almost celebrated.

@fh+1jjhc6wcs lol, not intimidating, just being realistic. As someone who was laid off from and rehired at Nike before joining adidas, I think it’s important not to take anything personally, be professional, and leave all doors open. Adidas doesn’t “owe” me a job for the rest of my life. I’m not that entitled or sheltered to believe that’s the way it works.

The already started Intimidating @ew+1jjhc6wcs

Of course this is about cost cutting. They just have to sell it as a restructuring for legal reasons. The "Kündigungsschutzgesetz" prevents them from just firing people. It would be hard to legally justify cost cutting, after such a successful year. Therefore they have to hide it as a "betriebsbedingte Kündigung", which is basically getting rid of people to restructure the company. However, even this has severe restrictions in Germany, which is why they do it now, having plenty of money for severance packages.

On top of that, it might look bad in the press if people get fired for cost-cutting after such a successful year.

@dc+1jjhc6wcs What is the legal precedent? This seems like a waste of money and a burning of bridges that could hurt someone much more than make any impact to changing this decision.

Get ready to fight! Reach out to your lawyers. Class suit is not a thing in Germany, but building enough pressure already, will help.

It’s not cost cutting, it’s trimming the fat.

Good luck finding jobs even for high performers. Job market is brutal out there globally and so many companies already laid off this last year in tech and retail it’s ridiculous.

Looking forward to see how they get rid of 500 people legally.
Yes is a big company and has lawyers on payroll but they cannot hire all lawyers in the region.
And how do they plan to pay a fair package to people who were more than 10 years in the company ? By offering them 6 months, they will never take it.
Perhaps is time that employees who will be fired illegally bring on a class lawsuit, for sure there are lawyers eager to take a shot at this, the publicity would be gigantic.
Seems adidas does not care about reputational damage, luckily they have bought all the prizes to prove what a great place to work it is.

If it’s not about cost-cutting, why resort to layoffs instead of other measures like retraining, redeploying talent, or cutting executive perks? If inefficiencies exist, why were they not addressed earlier by leadership? Isn’t that their job? Has leadership conducted a self-assessment of its own effectiveness in managing resources?

What specific metrics or data justified the 500-person reduction?