Hard to tell exactly the criteria. After knowing of at least 10 laid off in various depts, I can tell it is not based on performance. Some very productive, talented people were let go along with a few that were just starting. No 'in the weeds' lower managers that I know were consulted. This is just a wild guess, but I would say that someone high up made the decision that x number of people needed to go per certain departments and then some DEI came into play in the fine-tuning. I'm just basing that on the demographics and talent of the small sample I know and the people that were left. I could be 100% wrong.
5 replies (most recent on top)
It seemed a mixture of picking area (in some cases laying off everyone) and most expensive. Management was generally not effected where I was, unless the whole group was laid off, but are area is pretty lean (having been starved for years)
Ask the management consultants who did the dirty work to fund their own salaries
A bunch of that got RIFed who were funded by Project Rise speculate that played into some of it since our salaries would have had to been absorbed by the respective BUs. Obviously not everyone in Rise got sacked but there was a lot of high paid talent there. Plus there was duplication with Neustar and in a lot of cases you had a US based TU person against a GCC based Neustar person. Now if one person is making $150k and the other is making $35k who do you think they are gonna keep when the name of the game is to be as cheap as possible?
Tyson is getting sacked as well so not only middle management
100% high level line item analysis= all came down to $$. My colleague and I (Director and Sr Director) were told that as the two most Sr members of the team, we were the most expensive (and experienced). NO analysis of the projects we were on, etc. There is a large mid-level management cull with other roles just being moved overseas. TU - cutting off its nose to spite its face WHILE stepping over dollars to pick up pennies.