Lots of reasons folks are laid off, many of which are not performance based

The entire concept behind a layoff is that a position is being eliminated, and that the person who is occupying that position is no longer needed. It isn't necessarily that the person is a poor performer and not of possible value to the company - simply that whatever function they're serving is no longer needed. If you're the elephant trainer at the circus, and the circus gets rid of its elephants... they don't need an elephant trainer, even if you're the best elephant trainer on the planet. If the circus gets elephants next year, then they need a trainer and might hire you back.

Now, if the layoff is a game of musical chairs, so to speak where there are 10 elephant trainers and the circus decides they only need 5... well, then being one of the 5 let go may be an indicator of relative performance and the circus might not want to rehire you in the future (ACT & the stock level 4s). Or maybe you were among the oldest of the 5? (Or youngest, to provide the illusion of non-discrimination.) Or the highest paid.

Lots of reasons folks are laid off, many of which are not performance based and shouldn't preclude re-hiring someone in the future if their skillset is needed.

More people need to read and accept this. OP makes this point perfectly. Copied from @mlb+1kJ0eZJ6.

Comment! It's anonymous!

8 replies (most recent on top)

You have a dog in the fight, so it's hard to really understand what the situation is, given your biased viewpoint. Anyways, good luck.

They told me exactly that. That it’s not performance. You’re damn right it’s not, I was too helpful. Call me conceited if you must.
They got rid of me, one of two people who could have helped with a process in our group. The process isn’t gone either. The person they’re now going to lean on? Hasn’t been able to work a full day since the summer for very good reasons. Should they have let this person go instead? NO. But they’re going to hammer on other people who don’t yet know the process if something breaks catastrophically. People who will get hounded for taking a skosh longer to figure it out. People who were very visibly upset to watch me go.
Not because they liked me and I was helpful although maybe that was part of it, I’m sure they were worried they were next. Intel is doing more cuts. Intel wants to make sure that nothing works right again. It was barely working to start with in the last few years. The people left have no team morale anymore. And I’m sure fear means barely anything is getting done. Congrats.

Let a key player or two take the “voluntary quit” in a department with weak management and it’s a recipe for disaster .

Ultimately, the reasons people are laid off is because leadership failed. They may have overhired in the past or ran a mix of unsuccessful projects. Misguided strategy can have a cumulative effect behind the layoff. Perhaps they couldn’t land deals with HP, Microsoft Azure and Dell or maybe they may spent excessively $$$$ on themselves with catered “working” lunches and expensive leadership conferences. Or many of the above. Bottom line — the selection of specific individuals is a consequence of the precipitating event — lousy leadership.

@1wpa, maybe true but likely because most layoffs are the 10 to 5 elephant trainer type vs the eliminate all the elephant trainers. So there may be a performance criteria, but also maybe not.

My team and I were part of the small 2019 layoff that moved about 1100 people along. 6 people on my team - not a single one ever got less than successful and SL2. Focal before the layoff, 2 of the 6 got promos and another one got a mid year promo. But… IT decided they didn’t need us, so away we went. Appositions eliminated and the people in the seats not needed.

(I’ve always been curious how the Infosys managed service IT idea went. I saw a lot of openings a while back for network engineers and the like, so assume not so well. Bwhaha.)

wishful thinking and a rationalization the brain comes up with as a self-protection emotional blanket. Want to test what I am saying? get the data from HR. MOST (not all) of those laid off are not the Outstanding and Above Expectations... they are the Below Expectations and Needs Improvement group. Everybody knows this.

Reasons include:

Entire group is cut due to perceived low relative value
Entire group is cut due to previous actions that annoyed someone up the food chain
Position is cut due to perceived low relative value
Person is cut due to perceived low relative value
Person is cut due to previous actions that annoyed someone up the food chain
Person is cut due to skills held not aligning with skills perceived to be in need over the next X years
Person or group is cut because they aren’t as connected to the powers above as their main competitors
Person is cut because they are not in the desired demographic (I.e. older, male, white) and there is pressure on the org to improve their demographic balance

And it could be a combination of the above.

Or your are primary mover for elephant training your manager knows nothing about elephants and works at a remote location from you. All he sees is the power points from the elephant program managers and PEs which report all results as their own without credit. You do not have a strong personal relationship with your manager being remote.

Add a few cultural, race and other personality differences on top of this.

Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

Lots of reasons folks are laid off, many of which are not performance based

8 replies (most recent on top)

Post a reply