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.
20 replies (most recent on top)
Alvarez and Marshal (A&M) was specifically mentioned in our "survivor" meeting as the consulting firm Target retained to advise them on where to make cuts.
It was Bain. Bain was at a walkthrough the other week which actually confused many people at the time. But now it all makes sense.
Brian and friends need someone to blame in case the layoff goes wrong. Hiring consultants to do the 'dirty' work makes sense. McKinsey, Bain, or whoever, they did it but they did what they were hired to do.
It was Alvarez and Marsal. They've been working on this for months.
It was not Bain but McKinsey , I would know cos I actually booked their travel
They let two of the managers that were the cornerstones of the department go today. I mean, these two managers were the go-to people for escalated issues. I don't understand what they've used to decide who stays and who goes? It all sounds so arbitrary to me, it should be based on objective performance and team work, but what do I know? I just a working stiff answering phone calls. Best wishes to these two managers, we know you both ARE awesome team leaders and human beings, best wishes and good luck!
Makes sense it was Bain. They advised Target to go into Canada. We just took a 5 billion dollar loss there.
Not a huge shocker this was also a disaster. My favorite so far was a guy making 35k that reduced expenses by 1.7 million last year. Nice work. Sounds like a savvy decision.
So precision and time are what's needed to cut with a scalpel huh? I agree, but you'd think a 70 billion dollar a year company would find both the precision and time required to make the right choices. Unless you are already a highly paid executive (just signing off on the external consultants recommendation) who cannot relate to the thousands of families whose lives have been effected today. I wonder how long it will take for these decisions to trickle down to effect Target customer's experiences in the stores resulting in less dollars in the pocket of those decision making executives.
I am top talent, I am still here. They probably made mistake. I was thinking the same when they hired me, someone made mistake.
Working with a scalpel takes precision and time. Both of which were in short supply for Target. That may come back to bite them in the ass, but for now those that are left need to step up to the plate. If there really is top talent available on the market, they won't be for very long.
My spouse was laid off, so I'll admit my bias as well. However; a 10 year veteran of the team who is widely thought by other TMs I have met to be a complete idiot, has never moved to another role because other teams won't take her, and has lasted that long only because management was too weak to manage her out still has a job. Yet my spouse, who put head down, worked hard, and delivered value to the company was chopped down by the axe. Tenure ruled the day. Who would want to stay at a company like that anyways. It will be nothing but toxic around there as the shit cloud of further cuts lingers, the remaining high performers get more work piled on them, and the surviving low performers continue to skate by because management is too weak to actually deal with them.
And same consultant reorganized all departments
They had to go external due to internal fights between top execs and political positioning that unfolded prior to the cuts. So, what could Bain do? They probably developed some kind of methodology where they were chasing numbers from the salary spend and headcount perspective. Hitting the top performers made sense because they would bail in months or years to come (uncertainty, no wages growth, doubled workload, no stock growth, cuts in stock options, bonusesetc.) and they were probably well compensated, typically they are up 20% over your mediocre worker. We do not need poor performers, so that was a no brainier. So, we are left with the 'middle' group, and that's exactly what they did, they kept the guys in the middle.
My spouse was laid off today so I obviously have a bias - I just find it rather disturbing that an org chart with dollars attached was all an external consultant used in these decisions that will directly effect a Target's short and long term success. My spouse has admitted their department was bloated and cuts were inevitable, but wouldn't you want the best and brightest to remain? Nonetheless, these high performers will move on, it just bothers me that a company like Target would decide to chop with an ax than carefully carve with a scalpel. I guess it is just telling of the priority that top leadership has.
Were top performers actually let go though? I think many overestimate their value. But if it's true that an outside firm was brought in to cut positions with little regard to the capabilities of the person occupying it, this bodes very well for those of us looking for top talent.
Many of the highest performers in PDD were cut, and many of the poorest performers are still around. Thanks for condoning poor performance and cutting some of our top talent, Bain Consulting.
You are 100% correct. It was a huge mistake of how it happened. My past reviews proved a lot of people who got let go had high reviews and a lot of people who were underperfoming stayed. That was bad business.
Low or high performing based on review score? If it's review score, there are many posts suggesting that TMs who don't really perform get high score because they waste time doing GTKYs.
This is sickening. I guess it doesn't matter how good a job you do, just randomly get rid of employees. This shows what you do over time is not appreciated.
It was Mitt Romney's Bain Consulting