Anyone know how the decision was made? From the upper management? In which level? Or based on performance?
11 replies (most recent on top)
I guess the purpose is to achieve cost saving goal. So pick the highest salary (below VP) first.
It was not performance based. Myself and a few other TALENTED and well-reputed people on my team were axed. I’m not exactly sure what Seagate’s plan is but … whatever
JMP MVA
Combination of dartboard and ouija board.
eenie, meenie, minne ,moe
Critical names list. Outside of list did you give negative response on survey? It wasn’t anonymous.
3X + 1
You're either in an org that doesn't generate sufficient revenue - or your productivity/value/pay is off relative to your peers and/or your role in the group is unimportant/re-assignable. The best and the worst can be affected all the same.
Disagree with the comment below - Seagate retains productive but well documented a-holes, even at the expense of better people around them leaving.
"Fire the bottom 10%" - The Vitality Curve - Jack Welch - still alive and universally practiced today at all major companies - it just keeps getting characterized into something else - for legal or otherwise reasons.
(1) Sort by TC, highest to lowest.
(2) Pick top 15%
(3) Sort by complaints/comments in internal comms channels, and/or comments made during company meetings.
(4) Intersection of (2) and (3) get gone instantly.
(5) After that, work down list of (2) until desired numbers achieved.
I was told very little performance was used this time round. It’s was pretty much purely making the numbers work.
I had heard, not told but just heard, that managers were told to have just a handful of “must retain” for mission critical of each group otherwise everyone else was fair game to make numbers work. Again, just a rumor on that last bit.
Write a program for random number generator between the range of valid employee id’s. If the number matches your employee id then result is ____