Why do they act like layoffs are a random process? Do you genuinely believe it's random, or is there a systematic assessment of cost vs. benefits?
11 replies (most recent on top)
Having been on the other side of these at other companies, it's not random. You need to ensure some business continuity. You can't cut your all-stars and expect to keep going well. It's usually a decision on how much you could stand to lose that person or team. But that's not to say that mistakes are made and good people you actually need get cut.
It's sh---y. It's sh---y being cut. It's sh---y not being cut. It's sh---y doing the cutting. The only people it's not sh---y for are the shareholders who get to see a number go up. Enrique is doing exactly what he was brought in to do, and I'm guessing Alex never wanted to do it.
It is random for the most part, I have seen it multiple times over the years, they ki-l the gardener then panic because there is nobody left who knows how to cut the hedges, it's just a number game.
@a6 from what I’ve seen, not at all
If this company is so great why don’t employees buy stock? Nobody is buying so they will keep laying off.
laid off based on previous performance reviews
In my org people were laid off across tenure, skill, contribution, performance. Mostly IC. But also managers. Definitely seems random. No one was consulted, so I doubt the criteria being used is any good.
Did the ceo not say they were aiming to do many layoffs over 2 years? I dont get why anyone is shocked, upset or mad. We were all told.
Could it be the in person office attendance percentage?
@OP let me guess... they are calculated, fair and precise as long as they don't affect you am I right?
As a manager, one person on my team was selected. No clear link to comp, tenure, performance, location, etc. No clue how they were selected as I would have given a different name(s) on my team.
We got a new manager last month and she mentioned she did not give any names up.
Not sure how the two in my team were decided.