do we actually know if who was selected to be laid off really random? I know it's not performance based. I honestly think it might have been cost based as I'm probably one of the higher paid people in my role and got RIF'd.
22 replies (most recent on top)
During CDA, I remember people saying anyone with 20 years was at higher risk for layoffs.
@1jkl very curious if you know the tenure of your counterparts who staying on? meaning, did you get hired after them? If so, 'tenure' might be a selection criteria. Last in, first out. Now, I know a lot of people want to argue that fact, but it is true.
as a minority that got laid off and my non dei counterparts got to stay. i find the below statement irrelevant.
They should've started with all the (D)idn't (E)arn (I)t's
The person who let you go (in the meeting) might not have had a decision in the matter or did. Literally all SD or VPs take a list of names within the span of their organizations (or new organizations) and go right through them. One of the leaders I know really well said they had 20 conversations that day - 10 lay offs, 7 options, and 3 promotions.
Depending on the volume of conversations some of the VPs will take some calls to help out, or a peer SD.
Also - from my understanding this time around (versus 2020) - this was pretty close to purely a $$$ or HC reduction and less about flying formations, at least in my greater organization. Said leader I mentioned up above knew about 4 weeks in advance of who was likely to be let go but didn't know the full game plan. They did provide some names to the EVP to include in the reduction however the promotions were more like "someone has to manage them" vs "Ah these are the premier folks".
Right place, right time, wrong place, wrong time...
Also Directors are never informed of this until either the moment of or the day of.
Do the "deciders" know the names of the people that are being let go or just their salary, job title, age, gender, race, etc? I mean you can kind of put 2 and 2 together if you do the research. The person that let me go was an SD i have never met because my SD left long before phase 1 and was never backfilled.
It’s not random. It’s carefully thought out by a vp level person. As others said there is a dollar target to meet. The more expensive the people the easier it is to meet the target. So they hit S and E bands first. You still need the work to be done too so canning lower folks might be counterproductive. Now who they pick to go is up to them. Maybe they don’t like you or think others are smarter. It’s their decision.
I’ve been part of layoff selections and much of what’s being said here is kind of accurate. It generally goes like this -
1 - targets given to orgs
2 - targets can be $$ or HC count
3 - minimum span of control is determined for each leadership level
4 - VPs choose the SD & Ds they want to lose (this rarely has anything to do with performance unless the VP has no favorites, but generally they just pick the ppl they like the most to stay)
5 - ER & HR review lists but rarely make any changes. I know of many high performers that met span of control but were still let go in favor of someone that wasn’t as successful or had enough reports. They get around this by saying “x org has enough D’s to support span of control for 3 SD’s.” VP then picks favorite 3 SD’s to stay.
ER doesn’t care about fair or ethical decisions they only care about legal considerations and as long as they can say at the end of the day span of control meets minimum for those left they are good.
Not sure how it looks in other organizations but seems like hands-on keyboard ICs are not as impacted in my org.
This is how it goes, list of names are provided by certain leaders that are tapped to lead the organization in the future. These conversations happen at least 3 months prior to the RIF. After that the HR looks at the list with ER and Employment Legal. They go back and forth to said leader and negotiate/trade folks around getting displaced. They look at salary, performance, age, and tenure.
After much discussion they land a formal list of people that will be cut to make them under the headcount levels per organization deemed either by the EVP or Consulting company (Bain, McKinsey, etc) based on external market research.
Legal ensures there is no ageism, targeting (that’s why ER is involved), or any other form of discrimination before game time.
Long story short, you can fight it but it’s really going to be hard to prove it. At least back in 2017 you had a chance because ER wasn’t involved in the process. They (HR) corrected this in 2020 lay off.
Nike has become pretty dialed on their layoffs even though many disagree here.
Ask the McKinsey Consultant at SebCoe
I'm remote and 2 years in. Tenture doesn't have nothing to do with it. trying to figure out how I was chosen.
I don’t fully understand why people were “demoted” yet kept their same pay. How is that saving $ other than maybe a little PSP?
Is it just smoke and mirrors so they can say to the external world like “We eliminated 10 SD positions” yet in reality the people are still there, just no longer SD’s?
Or is it that they are truly trying to flatten the orgs? (until they recreate the same roles in six months…)
...And once thry narrow it down, rhey look at race, age, gender and sap people back in/out to balance the numbers.
Duplication of roles played a part.
Bottom line, however they selected you it needs to be a legally defendable criteria. Especially if you are a protected class. Highly doubt you were selected based on pay. That said you could be in a level band and a job code that was the highest paid in your organization. Potentially there wasn’t someone else in the same level band with the same job code and you were selected. Nike legal team is very sophisticated and will ensure they aren’t exposing the company to too much legal risk.
The algorithm identifies who to cut and managers determine who they fight for.
If you were there a while and were at the higher end of pay scale, you are a target. It's sad but true. Ask any former NIke employee during these, the trend will be approaching or past 50 years old, years of service, and pay scale. CFE's do not matter at that point, it's clearly a cost cutting move.
So looking to capture a certain $ saving obviously would mean that the highest paid gets let go first if you compare 2 people, same pay grade, same job title, etc.
Can confirm CFE ratings matter.
I disagree. It is the person with the most tenure and highest paid that gets let go. I had a friend who only had highly successful reviews that was let go as he was paid higher than peers.
I also know folks (who had people hired to their group 2 weeks ago) that were let go.... tenured goes first...
It's not random. There is a method and it's connected to the headcount target/cost savings the org needed to achieve. People are selected by Job level, role type, tenure and sometimes performance. Job level and comp are correlated, so if they were looking to capture a certain $ savings, your role was likely eliminated. Now, if there are multiple people in the same level and role they will look a tenure and performance. Lowest performer with the least tenure would go first.