BC asked VMW Directors to provide input on which employees should be offered FTE roles, transition roles, and immediate layoff. Some leaders tried their best to get their staff FTE roles, however, if your leader did not favor you or felt their position was in jeopardy, this was an opportunity for them to get rid of you. As a result, some very talented employees will be laid off.
18 replies (most recent on top)
Not true. I‘m a Director and was not asked at all. Rather, they picked people based on LI profiles.
VP was not asked either!
2 VPs I know completely different BU each told me they were given a count and they picked. But here is where they could’ve done something for you. One of the VPs told me they asked another VP for favor to find room for 2-3 people this person was trying to save. I really hope that this experience and the casualty of people who were sacrificed maybe at least teach our leadership that it’s not a title where you report numbers to high ups (which is pretty much what’ all VMware leadership does anyways ) it’s actually stepping up for your team in hard times like this. I was never a manager call me naive I would’ve been like “if they go down I go down with them” kind of mentality but hey that’s why people like me never get picked to me managers because we actually care and can’t play the BS political game that’s all what leadership is about
BC did not ask for VMW input or even make the decisions on who gets offers. That is a leadership myth that many of us bought. It was decided between VP and SVP with no input from below. How could a VP/SVP decide the fate at that level? It was based on who they had interacted with, favs, tenure etc.
Leadership has been lying since this started.
All that matters from this point on is that the products and teams that make money will be here next year, others won’t be.
"This is not 100% accurate for all employees. I know a top performer, probably one of the best I had worked with, that was well liked.m, a great talent and this person was not offered a position. I was very surprised by this. The other people I know that did not get offers were poor performers or weak talent. So I think there is some merit to this but it obviously reached deeper that we might have thought."
I think i know who you're talking about I'm a specialist in enterprise and you are probably referring to a female enterprise CE she is a ROCKSTAR and that was definitely PERSONAL
Absolutely! I’m an IC in the US and was told that it was all a favorite pick. There was no data used or analytics what so ever to make the decision. It was about saving one’s self and their neighbors and their buddies and their favorite people. You know it’s an organization or even leadership / people you don’t want to be around if they allow this type of bias to be made in deciding people’s future.
Im non-eng - absolutely not true for our group at least, I requested to be let go to my VP and was told they had NO input multiple times. ended up getting transitional and cant even get severance now since I wanna leave and have offers from other places
This is accurate, at least for my (non-engineering) department. Nepotism and perception/opinion played outsized roles. Dir/Sr. Dir/VP’s all played favorites.
I'm surprised that BC allowed VMW to pick at all. They were picking up an inefficient company that had a bad strategy. Why would you let leaders pick their favorites? I'd almost say pick and then do the opposite of what they selected.
Broadcom is giving budget to BUs, and let the GMs decide how to operate at the BU level,
Sure they must have given some requirements on how to make some cuts, Like the downgrade the entire Mgmt stack by 1 designation and the base cut %.
This by no means the end of the optimization, if the deal is passed once they take over, they will look deeper and further optimize many of us our of our position. That message is clear from multiple meetings and from the history of Broadcom, the optimization will be done for a year and beyond.
I'm surprised that BC allowed VMW to pick at all. They were picking up an inefficient company that had a bad strategy. Why would you let leaders pick their favorites? I'd almost say pick and then do the opposite of what they selected.
This is NOT true at all. From someone who knows.
This is not 100% accurate for all employees. I know a top performer, probably one of the best I had worked with, that was well liked.m, a great talent and this person was not offered a position. I was very surprised by this. The other people I know that did not get offers were poor performers or weak talent. So I think there is some merit to this but it obviously reached deeper that we might have thought.
I mean... if you have 100 stellar performers that all do the job perfectly at the same level and are asked to pick 50 to be retained, 50 are going to be cut regardless. Might as well su-k it up and help pick names.
Won't matter, come tomorrow everyone still going to have a job and BC will delay the aquisition. Looking forward to the choas.
Do you really believe VP, or even Sr. Director, know how to pick on engineer level?
The leadership hated talented employees because they were the ones who actually used their brains and did something most staff don't, think. The leadership prefer blind faith. This is because they are so incompetent at their jobs, they don't want their stupid ideas questioned. Its better to get rid of the thinkers. The leaders are great fans of David Rockefeller, a company of workers, no thinkers . unfortunately the leadership is why the company is here today and BC us going to make the same mistake which is why they are in debt 40 bn.
This is not true for everyone. In some departments, these inputs stopped at the SVP level and VP level in some sub teams, but ultimately BCOM chose which parts they wanted to keep.