Layoffs happen more often late in the year, when the company is trying to adjust for the next year.
Right after CPM is finished the company would usually do some 'thank-you' bonus or other thing as a way of holding down attrition.
This time is different, and it sure looks like they are using raises and promotions to prevent select people from volunteering for CPM, and to limit attrition beyond whatever they are targeting.
Maybe this is a better approach?
As Andy Grove used to say, 'Paranoia runs deep, into your life it will creep.'
@jy+1j 'Bun'?
You really got to stop posting from the cafe.
There's a man with a bun over there, telling me I got to beware.
It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound, everybody look what's going down.
Somethings happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear.
@ct+1j The posters are describing a change in strategy.
If it works then it is part of a change in how the company manages the workforce, and it makes sense that a change should happen.
The company is moving to more actively push out low performers (and persistently average workers, because they really aren't trying to improve) while at the same time improve retention of above average workers.
What difference does it really make? If you get an average to poor performance review you should be worried. Any increase in salary will be minimal and not really change your severance package by much. Why make the high performers wait for you to leave before they get rewarded. Even if cuts are in the 20K+ range 75-80% of employees will still have jobs. The average people who survive the cuts are now the new low performers. Repeat the process as necessary until Intel has the right size and efficient workforce.
HR is likely under new management for a reason, and the way rewards is being used for retention prior to involuntary and potential voluntary layoffs is all HR.
LBT is changing the way the company does things. This is also evident in how the orgs are restructuring.
It'll take maybe another year to tell if this way is better but it looks like it backs up his stated desire to attempt to build up a competitive engineering-based culture.
If he can really shrink the company to core functions then the resulting profitability should support more competitive salaries, and that will attract more capable engineers than has been the case for the past decade or so.
Or..he tries all these things and nothing changes. But at least he is trying, and has a deep background in mentoring startups, and the issues they commonly deal with seem to apply here as well.
See if the voluntary option is curtailed, with extra scrutiny of who is allowed.
This is what senior managers have always wanted and it looks like they got their wish, this time at least.
I don't disagree with them, at least on this topic. The company should not pay above average employees to leave.
As Ricky Bobby would say, 'That's d-mb. That is d-mb.'
No matter, they will continue to promote the wrong people.
40K talents are already out of the sinking Titanic. I am wondering what the leftovers are going to do next? Any thought?
@a5 people come and go all the time
Some of them add more and some add less.
It doesn't end, it just evolves.
Kind of sad that someone who has left would be hanging around this website.
@a3+ Things are changing and how this is being handled is definitely different than any past CPM action I can recall.
There seems to be a lot more focus on retention of those who are 'perceived' to be adding the most value.
If so that is a good thing. A lot of past CPM seemed indiscriminate.
Sooner or later you will be laid off. Who cares? Just focus on count down how many more paychecks to receive before polishing the resume.
Sheeple are being herded.
Mgt always want to control who leaves and especially now.
I've heard various higher level managers chafe at HR allowing people to volunteer.
They would rather eliminate the use of voluntary CPM.