This is the question of all questions:
Unfortunately, I was among those affected by the RA. I never thought it would happen to me, but it did. I'm curious, does anyone have an idea of how the selection process for layoffs works? How does upper management determine who should be let go if the first-line manager doesn't provide a list of individuals to be laid off?
ID: @4nnh+1m0DeoRS
That's interesting. I'd never heard of using "time in band metric ."I had heard of the comp ratio. I've never managed people at IBM, but I did at another company. Of course, specifics varied from year to year, but at the other company, "across the board" cut-backs generally worked the same way. The 3rd level managers would tell 2nd line managers that first-line managers had to rank their direct reports from top to bottom based on how critical they were. The criteria wasn't performance per se, but how much would be lost if they left? So you could have a guy who was a complete ar-e but the only one who knows how to run a specific report and was never in jeopardy of a RA.
The list was passed to the second-line manager, who re-ranked or put people in categories(absolutely critical, somewhat critical, ....). Then, that list was passed up to HR and legal. Most of the time, the 1st line and even 2nd line didn't even know how many would be let go. They knew that people at the bottom of the list were vulnerable, not how many or who.
A few weeks later, a list of people was returned to the managers to give them the bad news.
My understanding is that the RIFs 5 years ago at IBM followed a similar process. I am not sure now.
The stupid thing about rankings and decisions about who to let go is that people act like a manager has some magical machine that gauges just how valuable an employee is. It is id--tic. Most managers end up ranking people low who are the easiest to lay off. In other words, the stronger the connection to your first-line and second-line manager, the less likely you are to get the axe.
If you are new to the team, watch out. No one knows your value.
If your current manager did not hire you, watch out. No one wants to lay off someone they hired.
If your kids go to school with your boss, you probably have nothing to worry about.
The stronger your tie to your manager, the safer you are
Look around. Nine times out of ten, this is how the rankings are determined. The manager will make it about themself. If it is easier for them to axe you, you are in trouble.
The whole process also ensures that very senior managers 3rd line and above keep their hands clean and don't have to deal with the lives they are shortening.
Also, many people act like IBM does have some magic machine to determine an employee's value. It is total bullsh-t.
I hope those of you who are part of this RA understand that this is NOT a reflection of your value. You are getting screwed, and your placement on the list is not because you did something wrong. Stay strong, and keep your head up. You were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. I've been through it. A lot of people have. You will be ok.
H@mos,lgbqfu,people of color and woke women will remain.ITs the new world order
In my case (and my former front line manager) - 2nd line came up with his/her list. Not HR. It certainly had lower performers (even not on PIP) but had far more (closer to half his reports).
I think the only time (IBM) that front line is involved is for PIP. Which I think still is auto-select for 2nd line (or above).
You will get fired if u are white. This is a only Indian company now.
My compa ratio was over 1 so I knew it was only a matter of time. It is unfortunate that earning a good salary at IBM is a blessing as well as a curse.
PMR salary…over 1, bulls eye on your back. Distance to IBM office, scarcity of your skill set job role in workday.
Performance means nothing, that is for PIPs
Question to OP How long were you employed by IBM?
There should never be any RA's. This is the caused be incompetence and over paid management.
An ironic date for this article. . .
The New Rules of Layoffs --
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new-rules-of-layoffs-f827ada7
By: Chip Cutter
April 4, 2023 5:30 am ET
When McDonald’s Corp. MCD 0.25%increase; green up pointing triangle
said it would temporarily close its U.S. offices as it conducts layoffs at the burger chain, it brought renewed attention to a debate swirling inside HR departments: What is the best way to let people go?
The question is taking on urgency as more U.S. companies, from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to Amazon.com Inc., move to shed staff in a wave of layoffs that is heavily concentrated on white-collar jobs.
When it comes to carrying out those cuts, companies employ a range of approaches designed to minimize the pain and disruption of a difficult process.
Here are six of the questions employers face.
All at once or a little at a time?
Many companies grapple with whether to make one sweeping layoff or do a series of smaller cuts. Both carry risks.
At a time when employers still face challenges filling positions, large job cuts can lead companies to inadvertently cut key units or people, executives say.
Yet, taking it slowly to give a company time to assess its financial situation can take a human toll, creating a prolonged period of anxiety and instability inside an organization. Amazon.com has enacted more job cuts than expected in recent weeks, announcing last month that it would cut 9,000 more corporate jobs following earlier layoffs.
Face time or FaceTime?
Bosses long believed delivering the bad news face-to-face was the more humane approach. Covid-19 changed the equation. While many workers are being called back to the office, at least part time, full office attendance remains rare. Some executives are now asking themselves whether it is actually easier—and more humane—for employees to learn about a layoff on Zoom versus in-person.
“It almost seems cruel to ask someone to commute into the office just to let them go,” said Andy Challenger, senior vice president at outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc.
Midweek or Friday?
Just as with in-person firings, the conventional wisdom was Friday was the best day to carry out a layoff. That gave employees the weekend to process the news and plan their next steps.
That thinking has shifted. Many employers now see a midweek announcement as more humane, according to Lorna Hagen, a longtime chief people officer. A layoff on a Wednesday, Ms. Hagen said, can give employees time to talk to HR representatives or benefits providers during business hours in the ensuing days.
It’s not you—it’s me
One mistake managers continue to make, HR professionals say, is to tell employees how hard it is to let them go. “That just hits people the wrong way,” said Mr. Challenger. “It’s not about you.” The latest wave of layoffs often has felt like a competition among CEOs over who could craft the best apology.
Many executives have turned to lengthy memos to explain why they resorted to layoffs. Some of those notes look “suspiciously similar” across different companies, said Paul A. Argenti, professor of corporate communication at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth. He recommends that managers be as transparent as possible with employees about the health of a business so that no one is surprised when layoffs are announced.
Multiple months of pay, or less?
The size of exit packages is also up for debate. At the very least, companies should give laid-off employees a month of severance pay, corporate advisers say, though a number of employers have offered more. When Salesforce Inc. said in January that it would lay off employees, Marc Benioff, the company’s co-founder and chief executive, told workers that those in the U.S. would receive a minimum of nearly five months of pay, health insurance and other benefits.
Some smaller companies have received pushback from employees for not accelerating stock-vesting dates or for issuing severance packages that some saw as underwhelming. HR advisers recommend that companies be as generous as possible with exit packages. In an era when employees can easily sound off on a company even when they are being fired, it is also a best practice to develop a severance policy that can be defended.
OK, now who goes?
One of the last, toughest parts of any downsizing: determining who should be let go. The process of developing a layoff list is complicated and can stretch for weeks, with department heads and managers often debating which employees to eliminate. Seniority once guided layoffs, though it is now far more common for companies to assess skills over tenure, and to heavily consider someone’s recent performance.
HR officials will then often scrub a list, wanting to ensure that a company isn’t disproportionately laying off workers over the age of 40, or unfairly targeting minorities and others. Even with much preparation, many veteran HR leaders say layoffs can be messy. “There is no good way to do this,” said Gregory DeLapp, who spent much of his career in HR at the steel and materials manufacturer Carpenter Technology Corp.
You were a pain in the @$$ and now your finally gone
In this specific case, the upper line came to the first line with a target number, with very little room for negotiation. I know some cases In which the first line could submit 1 name less than the original ask. The request also included some restrictions, specially regarding location (some places were protected). Then the first line had to decide and come up with an explanation of the decision.
@xvh+1m5fLwq7 This is probably the most helpful response that I've ever seen on here. Might even be the first time I saw a response that directly addresses the OP's question.
When I was with IBM back in the day, there was one "systematic" process for RAs, but with ample room for variations. Simply put, upper management within a division would set an overall goal like "cut 10% of employee cost". Then various rules and dictates would come down from HR and legal as to how the cuts would proceed. This would ensure that business results were achieved in a consistent manner and not leave the company open to legal action. This would also account for individual employee differences that would result in different RA treatments (contractual agreements, payment of bonuses, stuff like that).
FYI...in every RA situation I saw at the company, the actual cut list came from a second-line manager or above, again based on dictates from HR and legal. I never saw a first line manager who chose to RA someone in their own department...problem employees would be fired before they were RA'd, and poorly-rated employees would end up on the cut list via dictates from HR.
I can answer some of this
In sum, they get the results they want.