I can get behind those. But is that what we're about to get? Or will the management use this as an opportunity to get rid of high performers who are highly paid (well paid for a good reason, of course)? I'd like to believe it'll be the former, but the chances are it will turn out to be the latter.
4 replies (most recent on top)
Past layoffs there have been a few strategic cuts (this area is on the sell block, that guy is an a$$hole) but it has mostly been cut 20% across the board incremented down to the team (chapter) level. So basically either you are cut or the guys (or gals) in the adjacent desks get hit. Very often it comes down to your direct report liking the other guy better because they are on the same commute van, gulf club, or traveled together more. It is a very disheartening process, particularly because if your group is strong and another group with the same skill set is full of light weights, both groups will be cut the same amount. Having been though several layoffs at Chevron, the most frustrating part is that the result has never been a flatter, more focused organization. None of the overlapping, redundant, inefficient middle management gets reduced, but rather the only change is the 80% of the Indians who remain are expected to solder on with 100% of the previous workload. Added to the fact that nothing productive was done for the 6 months before the ki-l, as everyone was distracted worrying, recrafting their PMPs, and butt kissing, and you find yourself wondering if you were really one of the lucky one to have not been left standing.
@1uzz has it right. As brutal (or fair, depending on your perspective) as it may sound, it's actually worse. "Off the record", trouble-makers and whiners are given "special consideration" to be laid off, regardless of their performance. Easy agreement as all the managers don't like (or are afraid of) these types of people. Oh, and let's not forget that high-pots and DEIs have inflated rankings, so they're never near the bottom.
We have had performance based layoffs before. The managers get in a room (yes, I was there) and someone from HR plots up the employees by PSG and average of last three PMP ratings. They start chopping from the bottom and stop when they get to the required 15-20% for each PSG. Managers can argue special cases to keep someone in (she was on maternity leave so I had no choice but to give her a low rating!), but that means someone with higher ratings gets whacked so the fights can be fun to watch.
In any layoff, the functional and group utility is what is first under consideration, so if you are at the wrong place, wrong time, not much can be done, unless you have very strong connections. But even within a function, those who are low performer or perceived as low performer [not just results but also behavior and teaming] are the first to let go.