The criteria for the layoffs were tenure, performance review and business need.
14 replies (most recent on top)
Target has a long history of age discrimination. They've settled (paid off) tons of older employees who were suddenly "poor performers" when they wanted to get rid of them.
In my area, we lost a buyer that just completed his training because he had only been with the company for 3 months. But, prior to joining Target, be brought with him 10 years of experience, which showed in every respect. He clearly had more knowledge of an ecommerce business than any of the rest of us have, so it makes no sense to me why he would have been let go. It's too bad because many of us could have learned from him and he was a decent guy. It was hard to see him go, but I find comfort knowing he'll be scooped up quickly.
Come on people, you know Target is famous for it's age discrimination. You hit the 50 yr mark and you are done. Happened to me. Five years of Excellent and outstanding reviews, then all of a sudden out of the blue, I was not meeting expectations and shown the door. What a crock of shit that company is. You are actually lucky to be done w/them.
My guess based on these responses that performance was not a main consideration and it came down to salary. Most strong performers one way or another "should" rise to the top in pay. But with the toxic culture of how people are valued and rewarded, how would even review scores or information from a Koolaid drinking leader really fairly asses the best person? It all about who you know and protecting your friends. Would that have been any better or changed things around Target?
Does anyone know many were cut from the Brooklyn Park campus?
Yeah, the approach taken was ridiculous... I understand the need to get rid of the layers, but they should have at least considered who was staying or going. I mean I get when an entire position is being cut from the company that it doesn't matter, but in our area all but one manager was let go. The manager that is left was new to the team and has the least amount of knowledge. Why not keep a manager on who is going to be a greater benefit to the team, especially now...
I think this is whacked that an outside consultant was the one who made a decision out of two people who should stay and who should go. Why would it be done this way? This sucks for the high performers, and the investors!, that it was done this way.
Had two TMs that were almost identical in every respect. The one with stellar performance reviews was let go and the one with poor reviews was kept. I guarantee you they didn't look at performance.
From what I hear, Bain consulting did the study. Exactly the same situation in my team - the absolute best people were let go; and maybe a very small number of people I know who were useless included too but majority were top notch performers and leaders. The criteria mentioned is crap. The way I see it, We did not lose jobs, Target lost us!
The best people in our department were laid off. The reorganizing makes no sense and will take a long time to fix. The consultants did not know what they were doing. They should have asked for help from management. What a mess!
On my team tenure and performance definitely did not play in. Our VP told us an external consultant was given our org chart and decided what positions should be cut... According to him, the consultant knew nothing about the people in the positions. This was definitely evident by the people that got cut and the people that stayed in given roles (i.e., a low performing pay grade 9 stayed, but a high performing pay grade 9 with similar years of experience was let go)... The lack of consideration of who should stay and go in given positions is going to have a negative impact on our team.
This is just what I heard in our area, but it may be different in others.
So they layer off tenured people if I read this correctly...probably because of the stock answer of higher salaries and more time off.
This is HR vomit.
I've noticed that those who were let go were 9+ years or less than 2 years at Target. Makes me not want to stay more than a few years for fear of being on the next chopping block.