Is it only me? I know we had threads on this but still...
18 replies (most recent on top)
@ay 100% pure cronyism with her. i dont even think she hides it very well. i know someone in her org who was marked safe, but said person made a deliberate effort over the years to get on her good side because the writing was on the wall. i guess that strategy paid off
@a9 It's cute that you think that much effort is put into who gets let go nowadays.
@ay Interesting. How about Xfinity Marketing?
IMO, in CB Marketing, it was all about whether she liked you or not. Or if she knew what you did and how that could help her. She's the one, along with many of her peers, who should be cut. Again, IMO.
I’ve seen people in senior positions who lack even basic understanding of their field, let alone relevant experience. Yet somehow, they’re still safe and secure.
I could prove it, but why volunteer to become the next target?
Maybe they have some special talents that aren’t listed in the job description.
There was a performance element leadership used this chance to get rid of the most toxic people on the team, bye Felicia
Feels like they threw a spreadsheet into AI and it hallucinated and gave random responses
It's likely a combination of many things. if your team was downsized, rankings were likely done some recent time ago. If you entire org was cut, it wasn't a decision based on your skills. Some teams were chosen to be as lean as possible to run them untill business directions.
changes, at which point those individuals will be reorg or serveranced.
My guess is rankings will be used again this year if they offer volunteer severances and don't reach a desired count.
@a3 similar approach and result..I always spoke what was right and good for the company. Was shown the door today. Not implying that was the reason...but, it su-ks.
Nobody needs to tell you anything. Whole entire orgs were blown up today.
Every group is going to be different depending on the respective ask from ELT. The way it works is people making the decisions and HR build out a grid with all employees listed who are part of an impacted team/group then stack rank those individuals based on criteria they create. Frontline groups will usually have attendance, performance ratings, location, and key scorecard metrics taken into account.
Above the manager level and backoffice folks usually have annual performance ratings and then the decision makers will evaluate each individual based on criteria they deem to be critical for those staying to have. That criteria could be something as stupid as “having a go to attitude”.
All that is to say that someone you’ve rarely interacted with has just made the decision on whether you stay or not and that decision could’ve been completely based on “vibes” that HR worded in a defensible way from a lawsuit perspective.
was told it wasn’t performance based. but admittedly they chose well.
It was performance based on my team.
Can confirm based on my team.. it's not performance or pay band. Can't give more details unfortunately.
@a3 there has been a trend with leadership getting rid of or silencing the critical voices in the room for a few years now. Several surprising layoffs made this painfully obvious.
I can genuinely say that there is no rhyme or reason to how they are cutting people. The business update call I was on, was with a group that collectively have the most experience and knowledge. Also people that I would consider to be SMEs in their area of work. We were all let go.
Don't rack your brain over it. I was let go today because I challenged what we did and how we did it. I also wasn't afraid to speak up. Good riddance.
I think you'll continue to live w/out this info. They will never disclose it.