If so, what has your experience been? It currently FEELS like I might be going through it, but not sure.
12 replies (most recent on top)
@17d I was the only person in Finance who put down a not satisfied on a survey question. Every status for one year I was asked if it was me. After one year I said it was me, The surveys are designed to weed out people. They are not confidential.
@17d Edited to say that "selective bias" was a wrong choice of words on my part to express that management is selectively choosing which TMs (leaders mostly) get to work remotely and which ones don't get that opportunity (the ones actually doing the work).
@15m I am convinced that team surveys are used to find people who are complaining to cull them out (by identifying writing patterns) so assume those are not anonymous; even if you have constructive feedback to share about the company or your manager or the entire division.
And good to know about NYC TMs being allowed to work in NYC. Sounds like favoritism or selective bias to me?
@se Leaders in my area have been allowed to work in the NYC office vs having to move to Mpls. Target missed a great opportunity to shed itself of some seriously toxic leaders. More proof that the team survey means nothing and that HR intervention is a joke.
Honestly your leader is probably just disengaged and not leading you or the team…
Start talking to them about Union protections. You will get their attention real quick. You want to get their attention star bringing up concerns and tell them that your leader has ignored them.
@pv Almost every company I've worked at (prior to TGT) also had a hard time getting rid of toxic managers. It's so disappointing. The only good thing to come out of RTO for TGT was that some of those managers (remote) were asked to move to Minneapolis, and the few that I know of decided to part ways with the company. Bye Felicias!!! Downside is they sometimes are replaced with other toxic managers who should have been fired 20 years ago.
@OP In tech my area used Git commits to surprise rank employees. We were the only area and weren't notified it was a performance metric. The next year Git commits weren't mentioned at all for anyone. Jira story points are in vogue right now for our area, but again not others. There are good teams to work for in Target Tech. There are also teams that destroy morale, ki-l careers, and lead nowhere but out of the company; I'm on on one of these. The last thing Target will do is remove a director or manager, no matter how bad they are. Target Tech is back to being a middle management factory.
I believe the 10% rule may still be in effect. I’ve seen it used on people based on personality versus performance. What you can do is have a physician diagnose you with anxiety. Have that physician send an FMLA to HR. You still work 100%. Unless you are really a bad performer, it may take the heat off.
@ge Quiet layoff or quiet firing? OP was talking about firing; and potentially being managed out (that's the proper definition of QF). For a layoff, sure... they may prioritize underperformers (or just people skating by). But if you are receiving glowing reviews year after year (especially if last year's performance review was above average), then maybe quiet firing is applicable in OP's case - especially if a new manager took over a department (the most likely scenario among many).
We need above average to not be put on quiet layoff list?
What exactly are you going through that makes you think you are being slowly pushed out? Do you feel it's justified - meaning did you have above average performance reviews in the past, and this is now coming as a surprise to you? Maybe you can supply some examples for us to judge without adding anything specific that may directly identify you (for privacy reasons)?