Thread regarding Qualcomm Inc. layoffs

Why was I RIf'ed (Telling the narratives of affected folks)

Over last few weeks, it was a steady stream of Linkedin requests and sometimes personal emails and also lunch time chats from those that were affected. While talking to them, it was with heavy heart and sadness that I listened to their stories; It was indeed unfortunate to see those that worked for couple of decades or lesser leaving the place. Almost all of them accepted that eventuality but one statement was repeated again and again by different people. They said "My VP choose me".. That was striking! They did not believe they were chosen for performance, they did not believe their managers chose them. I donot know what was the cause really that they were affected. But most of them believed with utmost certainty that it was the image their VPs had on them. True or false is not the question, but their conviction on who made the call, was common across the board. One of them told me naively "We did all that we were supposed to do and we never had to escalate anything to my VP. Hence VP did not know how much I contributed". I just listened, pretty sure that it was emotional time and just had to assure emotionally.

I began to think and read on what's really going on for this narrative to take such a strong hold. They know their situations best so I trust them. But the lesson I take is we need to manage our perception with boss and boss's boss . Like it or not. What we lesser mortals call as "Politics" or "Schmoozing" higher-ups call as "Collaboration" or "Keeping-in-loop". And the rule of the games demand that we use these techniques while playing. Being technical and contributing is good but these are getting to be additional job responsibilities.

All the best to the folks that were affected. Keep the confidence alive and hope the best outcome.

by
| 581 views | | 14 replies (last October 5, 2015) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+DMxnPf9

14 replies (most recent on top)

Anonymous171509 - agreed, and that is why I ultimately wound up leaving QC. It just wasn't that kind of place anymore. Luckily I followed my gut and left way before the sht hit the fan there and left SD and found a much better employer and place to live.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2lFw+DMxnPf9

I has been years since I have recommended working at Qualcomm. When I started, Qualcomm was relatively small (< 1000) yet I was still concerned it was too large. Back then, we were on the edge of failure trying to change the world with an idea we believed in. Some of us were able to recreate that inside the company a couple more times but that is rare. When you have the freedom, that is what you should be doing. Advising someone to work at an annuity where they count the days to retirement would be wrong. Find a place to work where you will work hard, have fun and what you do will make a difference (not that touchy-feely hippy-dippy difference but the "look that new thing exists because of this thing that I did and we busted our asses to make it happen")

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1TyS+DMxnPf9

Anonymous171509 - agreed on systems/HW/software, in that order. No doubt that you were productive. QC is actually world class in RF/systems. Hardware, maybe pretty good to good. Software, well there are pockets of goodness but lots less so. If I were a CS guy looking @ QC, I would run for the hills. Anyway, my concern isn't with the stock price (I'm long) but rather with the work environment for those remaining or those considering working @ Q - basically, you can do better, and the upside of working @ Q has been greatly diminished, so why deal with it going forward?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1bcK+DMxnPf9

I know why I still have a job

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @Yeg+DMxnPf9

Anonymous171572, sadly, I think those that get trapped is more than 80%. My experience is that Qualcomm is a systems company first, a hardware company second and a software company a distant third. I got away with it because I had a proven background in systems, hardware and software. I got away with it because the people I worked with were able to work with QCT to get some of our new ideas ported to the QCT code base. I was able to get away with it because I could articulate why it made sense. However, I had to take the heat for allowing people on the team to find and use new ways to do things. One has to be willing to take the heat for doing what they believe to be right and to have the technical reasons to back it up. At Qualcomm, the people that mattered lined up behind the technical choices.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @V4H+DMxnPf9

171514 - Your statement, "They most likely and rightfully disagreed with the useless, corrupted, self promoting, technically clueless Directors or did not suck up to them." - is dead on.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @huc+DMxnPf9

So Anonymous171509, I'm going to go about 80/20 on this. That is, there is about 20% of people who by chance or initiative are able to do good work at QC. However, there is a complementary group of people, many who are smart/talented/... but just by virtue of bad luck got placed into projects or contexts where they just couldn't maintain themselves through the work and are kinda trapped. And its not hard. How many emails/day do many people go through (50,100+ from threads)?, how many meetings? conducting interviews? how many bug fixes? how much coordination with other groups to negotiate how things will get done for various targets, releases, customers, operating systems? There are people for which these logistics form 50%+ of their working time. And then in the remaining time, they are doing work, but its the same stuff, over and over. This is where people get trapped. If you find yourself wrapped into such corporate bloat, its a sign that things aren't right and you are wasting away in such a role vs people who don't have to deal with this. Its not something that happens in a year or two, but if this goes on for years, and it has in QCT, then you have to realize whats happening an make a change to address it.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @IMo+DMxnPf9

Based on what I know so far, you need be in average performance to be safe. In low performance team, high performers got picked, while in high performance team, low performers got picked.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @SmC+DMxnPf9

171425: "they are getting recommendations from their Directors"... That would make sense and explain why in some cases wrong hard working, folks that are delivering to bottom line got picked. They most likely and rightfully disagreed with the usless, corrupted, self promoting, technically clueless Directors or did not suck up to them.... Maybe would have been more appropriate to take inputs directly from the leads that the affected employee was reporting to?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @NjL+DMxnPf9

I agree with Anonymous171502 for the most part. Commercial embedded software will continue with the same language, coding style and libraries for as long as it can. There is a concern that any change would result in destabilization of the existing code base and less portability of the engineers. In CR&D, at least on the projects I ran, I encouraged software and hardware engineers to try new things just as the systems engineers were trying new things. Sometimes it worked (we brought c++ to Qualcomm (yes I am old) and we helped bring Open Source to Qualcomm products) and often it didn't, but that is what the R stands for. We were always able to fall back to known technology. Later we pushed the limits of completely open control and displays using HTML5. I love open interfaces and standards because I believe it accelerates development by allowing everyone to contribute where they can contribute best. If you cannot do the job people want soon enough, then you should be road kill. Natural selection. So, within Qualcomm, some were able to work on new things.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @9fM+DMxnPf9

Probably some truth to this, OTOH many people just got fat, dumb, and complacent at QC, which was easy to do given the environment. The moral of the story is to keep your skills up date and realize when its time to move on and be prepared to do so. QC is a really bad place for most sw people as its a very deskilling environment because much of their software technology is way behind modern skills sets and you get trapped doing the same crap for a long time. Now people are learning the hard way. Its not impossible to pull yourself out of that hellhole, but its going to take extra studying on your part to get your skills up to date, something that many people just aren't that motivated to do - so live and learn.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @Pte+DMxnPf9

Completely agree with 171425 and 171341 - in my case it was the department heads who told the higher-ups that I had approached them about volunteering, when in fact, the opposite was true - they had approached me and I told them that I was not interested. Guess who got picked to GTFO?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @E6C+DMxnPf9

VP's aren't picking individuals on their own. They are getting recommendations from their Directors and either rubber stamping them and horse trading positions for the different departments under them.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @Vc8+DMxnPf9

Understandably, the perception can be of a VP making an absolute decision in a vacuum, but the reality is more nuanced. Of course their department head chose them. That is one of the things department heads must do. They make the decisions on raises, bonuses, promotions, PIPs, etc. However, they are given input from their managers. So, if your department head does not know you but your manager knows your value, then your manager should be speaking on your behalf during any review, including these layoffs. In addition, people above the department heads will overrule their decisions when they believe them to be incorrect. However, at the end of the day, the department heads are the figure heads for all things managerial, including these layoffs.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @Z5I+DMxnPf9

Post a reply

: