After quarter over quarter of underwhelming performance for the last couple of years (often spun internally as positive performance or intentional, i.e., "pausing to propel" or "slowing down to speed up"... insert corny cliche here) and stalled hiring demands, Gartner execs made the decision to lower their prized TA capacity. Mind you, this is a function they always yammered on about keeping well above the demand as their competitive edge -- clearly, that's no longer the case.
Like others have posted, the layoffs impacted roughly 10% of the current TA team globally - from talent sourcers and recruiters to some in middle management. I believe more are coming if performance doesn't drastically improve in the quarters ahead.
The round one layoff selection criteria are arbitrary at best from the names of individuals I know who were impacted. I speculate they used the talent "9 box" (google it - lots of employers use this tool) that leaders were asked to complete earlier in the year to identity who got the axe, but that's purely my speculation. In the future, if additional mass layoff rounds need to happen, I believe they will eliminate those outside location strategy (don't worry I'm sure exceptions will be made for Obert and his directs).
Favoritism runs rampant across HR and the TA space. Have you seen the movie "Mean Girls"? Then you know what Gartner HR is like at the top -- Robin's executive leadership team doesn't get along at all. Same goes for Obert's direct reports -- all backstab each other and talk sh-t any chance they get. Hand to God.
What concerns me for the remaining TA team is the company's future outlook. For anyone still there, you know how difficult it is to get anything innovative done -- hoops to jump through, politics, etc. Like others have shared on this platform, there are MANY senior leaders who have been in role for YEARS that need to be able to innovate and quickly pivot. At this point with AI and other resources available for free or at a fraction of the cost of Gartner, it's like turning around the Titanic. They need a quick, effective reinvention and ability to differentiate themselves on the market. It's going to be tough to do -- not impossible, but tough -- and will take time which is not on their side.
For those able to do so, here's an exercise: check out how many across the company are showing as "open to work." It's staggering.
All the best to those in TA impacted as well as current survivors. Godspeed.
9 replies (most recent on top)
Has there been anymore layoffs in TA? Stock isn’t looking too good and the earnings call is coming up.
It was 25% of TA globally that was laid off. Some in May- July. The rest last week. I think there is more to come. It was so toxic at the end that I was almost relieved to be laid off even without another job. I slept for 3 days straight after I was laid off. My body was giving out on me due to the stress
Jumping in with EMEA perspective here — anyone who accepts a settlement payment (severance) in the UK is technically taking “voluntary redundancy” which means they are not counted as a layoff.
Gartner has an excellent employment law function that will ensure their bases are covered. This is part of the reason why no one in Spain was impacted; harder to lay people off there, especially en masse.
Current Senior Recruiter here. Agree about AC's directs. All been there a long time and well past their sell by date.
Gartner's biggest issue is Leadership who manage up and care only about themselves.
@az did some research here and I think Gartner having several different COEs will protect them- it would have to be 50+ from the same office.
@az i appreciate the clarity here! Su-ks how gartner is going through with things and was hoping for a sliver of retribution
The WARN Act requires employers with 100 or more employees to provide at least 60 days' advance written notice of a plant closing or mass layoff. Layoffs triggering this notice typically involve 50 or more employees, or when 50 or more employees are laid off and that number is at least one-third of the workforce at a single site. Certain exceptions apply, such as for unforeseeable business circumstances or natural disasters.
Basically, The employer must have 100 or more employees, the notice is required for a mass layoff or plant closing and the threshold is 50 or more employees are laid off at a single site (keyword is single site), or 50 or more employees are laid off, AND this number represents at least 33% of the total full-time workers at that location.
@a2 they have good employment law attorneys on staff so I’m sure they’re compliant. From what I understand the act requires that they report layoffs over 100. But the way that they’re doing it in phases And different departments at a time could be a loophole.
~10% of the TA population is roughly 50-60 people
anyone aware of the WARN act? I’m curious to know if gartner followed the criteria considering the amount of associated impacted.