Years ago, it always felt like they targeted lower performers, and most of us were okay with that. But that hasn’t been the pattern lately. The more recent cuts looked like they just wiped out roles and whoever happened to sit in them, performance be damned. Now nobody feels safe anymore. How's that better for the company?
6 replies (most recent on top)
When your C-levels are the low performers, you're the one that gets cut.
It's not better for the company, but since they're the ones who run the company, they say it is.
As an example, AW wasn't going to fire himself, no matter how sj*tty a job he did.
Can't speak for anyone else but I was 4 stars on all reviews for years still RIF with about 10 people in the dept. My advice would be look at your org chart if theres 4+ other team members reporting to your manager its ripe for a RIF (they can make due with 1 or more less heads).
@ew I understand that both the C and S sides of member services have been overwhelmed. With the impending cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, we can expect significant challenges in 2026.
Believe me, as a people manager you don’t always get a choice in who is cut. Sometimes upline leadership selects a more skilled, seasoned employee over a newer or less experienced one. Don’t assume that because someone was let go from your team that they were necessarily a poor performer.
The RIF list for Jan is large, and I hope everyone is thinking about contingency plans. I know I am.
@OP The goal of a company is not to care for employees, it is to generate wealth for stock-holders. 'Headcount' in a company is a commodity - it's used as such.
'Bulking-up' and 'leaning out' are often performative activities to affect share price and have nothing to do with the actual bottom line.
This is possible via 'at will' employment.
It is what it is. Wishes are for dreams and dreams are for a rainy day.