I can’t wrap my head around the way they’re choosing people. The whole process is super unclear, and it simply doesn’t add up. I’ve seen some really knowledgeable and experienced folks laid off for no obvious reason. It feels like they’re all over the place with their decisions, and I can’t figure out what they’re actually basing it on.
13 replies (most recent on top)
It was not mckinsey that made the final selections, it was the senior most leaders. Don’t let them blame the consultants for their own misjudgments! If they ate going to do this, they should atleast own up to it vs hide behind mckinsey.
They are taking questions at the townhall tomorrow and I encourage everyone to ask the tough questions. I doubt they will even answer but it is worth a shot.
Are they taking questions for the town hall on Monday? I’ll be curious how they try to explain the selection process.
McKinsey is just a joke , that is not the first time this company relies on them for lay off and they are just interested by their commission . Cargill is just doing and undoing again and again for example CTL was business and became global and now is business again . There are people behind at all functions and levels . Performance is just bullsh-t I see extremely high performers leaving and poor performers staying .
My performance has been strong since I joined (always been at top right) but still impacted by this round of layoff. I think for the new Food Enterprise, due to the merger (you dont need two marketing / finance / pricing leaders), they just threw a dart and got rid of half (or a %) of us.
I am certain it said performance based. Discussed that point with colleagues. Less surprised they deleted than that they ever framed that way.
High salaries. Middle management. Associates on PIP. Folks on the old retirement plan. I read that they cut LAYERS. And boy....were there layers. The main thing is the company attacking the fact or perception that Cargill is hard to do business with. This seems to be the MAIN theme. Also a key theme is more LOCAL. In order to be easier to do biz with...we need to be local and have more power/say/whatever you want to call it locally. In going LOCAL, they trimmed the bloat in Wichita to the bone. Next 10 years is "local, get close to customer. " Then, it will switch back to CENTRALIZATION. Then it'll go back and forth until the next great strategy.
They laid off people with high salaries and in roles where MCK believed isn’t needed in the future anymore. Anyway, the whole situation is not helping the company, they will be doomed for years and I still have the feeling they plan to go public.
I also recall seeing the FAQ include a statement about performance being a factor.
There is an FAQ on the 2030 page. Did anyone see the question about how they were selected? I swear at the beginning of the week it was based on various things including "performance based" but when I looked at the FAQ again yesterday, that verbiage is not there anymore. I know it was a rough emotional week and maybe it wasn't there, but did anyone else notice? I should have taken a screenshot of it!!
I have heard similar to the last reply of the McKinsey company being involved and leadership will likely never tell us the truth about how.
This is unverified, but I'm heard that consultants from McKinsey basically designed the new organizational structure including details for roles. And they also helped select the folks to rif. Whether true or not, we will probably never know. But considering the seemingly haphazard selection of folks I know that were riffed and those that are staying, it fits.
I had over 25 years and got it. I for one am happy for myself as I am riding that severance package into retirement as I was already planning on leaving. I feel so heartbroken for my many friends that got laid-off and those left to clean up the mess.
Except for BOSC, that’s pretty obvious.
It looks super random to me too