It seems to me this could have in a way that was more fair and put the best people in the remaining roles. I know this would take more work and time, why not 1st ask for voluntary layoffs (severance package and move on). Best Buy has done that in the past and takes people out of the equation that want out and most likely would leave anyway shortly after. Then reveal your new future team layouts and org charts and essentially post, apply, and interview for the fewer remaining roles starting at the top. You would have a better chance of retaining top talent (vs. a consulting firm drawing names out of a hat) and give people at least a chance to find a landing spot in areas where they have interest or even prior experience based on the new expectations of the role. From all the dialogue here, seems like there are people that don't want to be there, the wrong people in some cases were retained or let go, and others put in charge of teams that are not prepared and setup for failure.
7 replies (most recent on top)
Our Director did try to get HR to make two changes with this restructure and they stated that absolutely no changes could be made at this time. Now the people that are needed are no longer in our area. We are left scrambling to get everything done daily.
Whatever happened behind the scenes, it is clear that really good talent, people who bled red and khaki and would do anything for Target, were laid off. I think it is exactly how it appears - laid off based on a consulting firm and salaries. No risk for Cornell - he will get a golden parachute one way or the other, and like it or not, this is capitalism. I was one of the people just laid off. Going forward - knowing that this can, and probably will happen again (I believe this was the board's idea and they aren't going anywhere anytime soon), ask yourself if you are ok with working three times as hard, performance doesn't matter, and promotions with salary impact only pushes you closer out the door. If you're cool with this, carry on my friend! If not, know there really are a LOT of jobs out there (as we are finding), and start planning your exit. Resources are out there to help you find another job, etc, right now, even though you weren't laid off. I can't imagine what that place is like after something like this - my heart goes out to you.
I love how they want to tell us they had to do it this way for "legal" purposes. What they mean is for "lazy" and "easy" purposes. Brian Cornell doesn't trust his leadership PERIOD. For that reason he didn't want to involve them in the decision making nor the strategic planning of what we will be going forward. No one has a clue wtf is going on. We're like mindless zombies. You handed our best talent over to other companies on a silver platter and left the rest of us to flounder because you have the map and we are being drug along. So much for COLLABORATION.
It's difficult to make sense of the methodology but it is clear that managers and directors and probably most VPs did not have any input in the decisions on who to lay off and how to reorganize. It will take some very unproductive time to sort everything out and get back on track. I think everyone agrees there was fat to trim but it could have been trimmed much more efficiently and with less disruption. If this is an example of how things will be done in the future, then I'm afraid the future does not look bright.
Every single reorg and reduction ive been through involved either deciding directly, or providing a list of possible names. And when someone is tapped to lead new/reorged team, people are never left dumbfounded. Sad or upset yes, but never WTF?!!
I hear you, never heard of it done that way...and for such obvious reasons. Amateur move. How does a CEO hear this kind of gameplan from a consulting group and think such a thing makes sense. It is clear Brian really just doesn't care.
I still can't accept that Target left it entirely up to a consulting firm as to who would stay and who would go. I'm not talking positions or departments, I'm talking the actual people. 'Hey this #28 sure makes a lot of money. Let's let him go and put #3 at the running back position. He's younger and makes a lot less money.' That example is basically what a lot of you are implying actually happened. I for one don't believe it.