What is the firm's strategy in doing the VSPs the way they are? The rule of 70 has a clear intention, but the across the board offer for all non-GP leaders seems strange. The way they presented the reimagining and some comments on previous threads alluded to a very intentional plan of removing redundancies and areas targeted for automation or offshoring, but this seems more chaotic than intentional.
8 replies (most recent on top)
The VSP is just a first cascade facade to see how many people they can fire without lawsuit frictions. They will deny VSP for anyone who wasn’t in their plan.
But for those who decline, there will be the next cascade. In either case the people who in their eyes need to be gone will be gone but fraction of them will not be technically laid off due to VSP. That’s called optionality at its best.
Too many overpaid and low performing GP's and Jones is too cowardly to fire them. Let them "retire" but most of these people aren't qualified to manage a taco stand. Half of the GP's could go and no one would notice a single change in work quality.
KJ was the CHRO at the time.
Change management and overall workforce strategy have been lacking. Yet no one is accountable.
I actually think it’s a smart move by the firm and they have pushed the burden of decision on us.
If you apply for VSP and they feel you are redundant or will be redundant soon, they will accept your VSP. If they feel they need you, they will reject your VSP.
To understand where you stand, apply for the VSP. If they accept, you know you would be let go in the ISP anyway. If they don’t accept the VSP, you keep your job.
For those with longer tenures (say 10 years or more), the VSP offer is too generous to ignore. And keep in mind, they could change rules and make the isp very basic (say 4 weeks standard severance irrespective of tenure).
Similar to how poorly they rolled out Hybrid Activation, this is another absolute masterclass in change management.
Seems like there still isn't a workforce strategy. A blanket VSP offer doesn't account for certain areas being growth drivers or essential business functions. It doesn't take into account redundancies or offshoring targets that would be looked at for ISP. Puts leaders in a difficult position to decide with limited information and the possibility for a less generous ISP down the line.
They overhired without actual workforce strategy by the CHRO. Here we are. They need to suddenly get to a right number and this is the way to get there.