so even if your VP put you on the sh-----t, the list itself is merged and reranked based on CFE ratings) and maybe tenure & takent flags)? That makes sense, and also means that nobody can be certain if it hits them!? With the exception of those who got 1708ed on Friday.
45 replies (most recent on top)
SD and Dir don't know who will be laid off.
Force rank lists were due to managers back in late Nov/Early Dec. As those lists get merged and rolled up the food chain to Sr VPs, that is what folks that don't know the people are basing decisions on. Unless you got an "inconsistent" rating over the past 3 years, then you are moved to bottom of said list. New orgs will be built from a top down approach to that list and the rest are cut. There is no specific % across each department.
I think the truth is it varies wildly by org and proximity to the changes. In my org, my SD knows absolutely nothing and has been dooming for about 3 months straight. Another SD in the department has been very cagey about what they know, but have let out more than few little rumors that have turned out to be 100% true each time. Maybe they’re just SUPER good at reading the tea leaves, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that they have had some kind of input or have been having conversations with someone who does.
None of my Directors or Senior Directors knew anything.
@1beg+1r7ba2gN why would anyone take the time to respond on here with lies? Nothing in it for me to make up bullsh!t on an anonymous site, and if I was just a troll my response would have been more inflammatory or outlandish.
@1eub+1r7ba2gN Tell the truth: if you did know and you contributed to the list, would you really be honest about it? Or allowed to be?
Sen Dir in GT here, we know nothing beyond the rumors most ppl have already seen on here. VPs were chosen by a very small group and most thought they were read in, but they weren’t fully read-in cause they were on the list themselves. This round in GT over the next few weeks is mostly leadership. Also if you read the details sent out they specifically called out VPLT is first. My guess is once leadership is settled they will ask Sen D and Dir to make the IC selections. Most ICs will be in Apr/May based on what I’m hearing.
I was laid off by a senior director three weeks after they told me to my face I was safe
You know everyone who does know would just say they didn’t do they are still favored after the fact, right? i really trust leaders when they say they don’t
I know directors that have been asked and input. It depends on the org and team
I think it depends on the org. I was laid off by a sr director and my director def knew.
@1iqx So it would not be the Dir/SD to deliver the news to their direct reports? Who would be the one to tell the news in that meeting besides HR?
When talking to friend who is a SD, he mentioned he didn’t know exactly when activation was but did mention it’s all a numbers game rather than activation or new operating model. He informed me he was pulled into one meeting and they asked him if he could still operate losing some organizations.
He didn’t tell me any details beyond that, he said that was pretty much all they asked of him. Said it was 30 minute call with VPs.
He didn’t seem too happy about it, because I’m sure they’re asking him to do more with less or no drop off of work even though resources and capacity is changing.
Very sobering when I found out.
Also a dir and know nothing. The Sr directors in my org know nothing. Our VP maybe knows bits and pieces. His VP knows.
Layoffs are never a good situation but why is that Nike always seems to lay off people and eliminate roles in a way that makes little sense? Judging from the comments below, many Sr Directors don’t even know who or why? Is that common?
@1snv+1r7ba2gN That’s not true. I know plenty of Nike directors that go to other director roles or higher at other companies
Without bosses giving list or feedback, how is it possible for external consultants to know who should be picked up or what they are doing? It’s interesting
Well as a manager I was always made aware even if indirectly. Usually I hear something like ‘can you still deliver with one SRE’ knowing that of the 3 developers only one is a SRE.
McKinsey knows. JD has been fed all this nihilistic austerity by the CFO, Matt Friend and his friends from McKinsey. Every financial guidance statement they’ve put out in the last 2 years sounds like it was written by someone riding a billion dollar short on the stock. Sabotage.
director in nike is manager level in another company. they definitely don't know.
Problem is not that directors know or not. Problem is we have too many directors! Some with no reports, some with one or two reports, and forced additional headcount.
That's a highly ineffective organizational structure!
I think it depends on the group. I know for a fact that one director in GT was asked for a soft ranked list of people in the group. It was ostensibly for "planning" and resource coverage. I don't think the true reasons were necessarily spelled out. I will be curious to see if the group is affected next week.
@1ujl+1r7ba2gN You can believe whatever it is that helps you sleep at night. But don't say you weren't warned when you become a dir/sr dir and one morning you go to slack one of your directs and their account is deactivated and that's how you find out that they were laid off. Because that's what's happening.
All of this feels like lies because I definitely know sr directors who know and are part of the conversations.
I also know directors who knew about who in December and November well ahead of time. I know some of them aren’t telling the truth because it’s easier to blame upwards and deflect so they stay well liked, but there are people inputting into this decision and it’s not only SVPs. They just need to tell you that to maintain loyalty and trust after the fact
My understanding is that VPs have not been read in either. There has to be some sort of tiger team that has put the pieces in motion, under direction from ELT
Our VP was let go last month. Thry told hom all was fine and his team was fine. Part of his team was also let go. Folks under other VPs in the org were Aldo let go.
A VP above him, his VP peers, HR, and some SD advisers made the decisions. "Who is landing below the line?" That gets shuffled after the initial pass based on F/M, age, race. You know, to keep the balance. However, most of the over 40-tear-olds were let go.
Directors are not asked for any kind of list. I am one. I have been through 4 of these. We are never consulted. And most Sr Dir aren't either. I know, it su-ks knowing that the person who should be able to advocate for you and your work is not at the table. But that's how these go.
What basis identifying ? SDs or Ds shared a list and some unknown HR picking randomly? How do they know who is doing what?
@1doj that's exactly what's fu--ing happening.
So if directors and senior directors don’t have input who is making the decisions and what criteria are used? There is no way HR does this in a vacuum with some consultants. . Vp level makes decisions based on some sort of input and data in broad strokes.
Some SDs and above were invited to planning but none have lists or a final say in who goes.
I'm convinced my director and senior director don't know a thing yet. But I'm also convinced they wouldn't tell us anything if they did
@1quy pretty much yup
@1tfe If you were a VP about to be laid off do you really think they would tell you? Think about it. And yes, an "interim" will come in, or you'll be reorged.
@1dqb+1r7ba2gN Directors are set up to fail at Nike. They essentially have to work in a constant hunger games scenario where they have little actual authority and decision making rights, are constantly fighting for funding and resources and told to do more with less. They have to play the politics game just to clear the runway for their team to be able to get anything done. Director level is textbook middle management where those below them think they have more influence than they actually do and where being likable does matter because if you're not, your whole team suffers and doesn't get the resources it needs. There probably are some real bad apples in the bunch, but most are just trying to succeed against some pretty stacked odds.
Director here and I have been told nothing. My Sr Director is very transparent and she has no information either. Layoffs are never easy for anyone but Nike seems to find new & creative ways to botch it every time.
If it is a reorg then how is it that VPs don't know. Can someone explain that to me? Does it matter if a role is needed and they need someone who can provide the expertise to be successful or is it just everyone is expendable and the ones who remain are going to have to step up to the plate and sink or swim?
The guidance we got was the same thing as the FAQ: use the EAP and Lyra. The "talk to your manager" thing is a cop-out, they didn't tell us anything. Easy way for JD and the ELT to pass the buck.
@1rrj+1r7ba2gN People are dragging directors in this not because they know about who is on the list. They are dragging directors because Nike has the least qualified and toxic directors that breed the culture of self promotion, backbiting, and throwing anyone under the bus that comes their way. Same goes for senior leadership.
Director here, I have NO information, not even guidance on talking to my team. I'm VERY convinced my SD and VP have no information either, after grilling them.