With the layoffs happening, are they targeting people with high salaries?
What's the average salary of an:
IC
Manager
Senior Manager
Director
Senior Director
VP
SVP
Could they hit their reduction target better by targeting middle/senior leadership?
I don't understand how they decided on people?
There's so many Directors, VPs and SVPs who should not even have that title. They are absolutely useless and pretty much brain-dead! How they were able to move up is beyond me. These are the ones that go around and play favorites. And they play favorites with all the incompetents. If you notice, the hard working ones sit down & do their work. They don't have time to play these games. But, it's these dead weights that get promoted over and over until they make Director (and up..). It's the higher ups that create these hostile working environments. These are the ones we need to get rid of.
I don't understand the Nick layoffs - are they no longer marketing - is some other division taking them over - it makes no sense
Speaking from the over 100 people let go in the Nick Marketing dept. alone, it was all different titles from SVP's to managers to coordinators to assistants. Did not matter in the least.
Agree with everything commented. There's no rhyme or reason to it. A lot of hard working talented people are being let go.... the people that actually do the work. It seems like this has been the case more so than the managers, directors and above. And it seems like the further up the chain they are, they protect each other and to save themselves, let the "little ones" go. Also agree that there is a lot of favoritism that seems to be involved involved in these decisions from what I've seen.
Let's face it... if it is up to the department heads, they will choose their favorites - just like any other human being! And that... is not fair - it should be impartial and the highest earners first if they are truly all about saving money. Most of the people it seems were laid off were below Director and even those few Directors and above were given bigger golden handshakes than the rest.
I've noticed several threads on here where people are trying to crack the code on how people are chosen to be laid off. There is no magic formula. I'm sure that decisions are reached in different ways across different groups. Yes, salary, performance etc is all taken in to account but ultimately the decision falls on the department heads. The bottom line is that they need to meet a number goal given to them, so their choice is going to be influenced by that mainly. There is no magic formula though. It's not performance score + salary divided by years with company = you are safe.
That's what it feels like, I've lost so many friends in other teams that were incredibly solid performers and were excellent at cross functional collaboration, it's made my work so much harder and years of relationship building blown away.
I've mainly seen ICs laid off, I just can't get my head around the reasoning for it.
Why get rid of the people DOING the work?
Same question here. A big insult to injury would be if they fire the top contributors, and leave behind the ppl that are just dead weight, whether they are in management or not.