Layoff perspective from my HQ perspective

I've worked in the field and HQ for 40 + years retiring not too long ago. Take this for what it is.

After 40+ years of working in various HQ leadership roles and having been in multiple GM roles on the GTM side: I would sum up the state of the current GTM approach as this. The field can continue to be layered in complexity as we reduce heads at the top. The reason for this is your typical frontline EE is going to need to finish his/her day, the Service managers are going to need to finish their day, the SDL's are going to be held responsible for anything and everything. Route supervisors will see the days complete. Zone directors will get whatever is thrown on their plate done. Unit Managers will hold their locations accountable.

Having been at HQ and watching projects take 2-4 years to complete that do not have an impact on the field this has caused many of us to ask one question. Are those 1100 jobs that cost $300million dollars a year in salary going to add 300 million dollars a year to the fields profitability? The answer is no. So as we remove jobs that make too much money and we layer on complexity to people who get a $1000 one time bonus they will embrace their current roles, win and as an organization we will move forward much more profitably.

Those that were laid off. Ask yourself one question. Did you swing the category you were responsible for favorably into PepsiCo. The people who "everything they touch turn to gold" Always will have a job as the world needs people who can win.

I also noticed a comment where an 85hr/week merchandiser got blasted by someone from HQ.

The most talented people who end up leading our organization with the most success almost always come out of the field. Those that can grind out an 85 hr work week when placed in a HQ role generally lead the field as they see all variables and make the best decision based on the current climate of the industry.

I survived 40+ years in the grind and I did so by providing something unique for my entire career. In my core I always walked away from field visits blown away by the way the people I encountered on my visits looked at the business. At HQ I always walked away asking myself do these people truly want to win.

Comment! It's anonymous!

7 replies (most recent on top)

I agree with the writer of the original post concerning these IT projects that produce fruitless results. However why does upper level management tolerate this and be rid of the quacks that waste these kinds of dollars with the end results being the elimination of people who truly want to do a good job and be productive for the company. Most people that are laid off are being let go due to poor management. My own current employer has a huge problem with their customer service operation which continues to fail the organization yet they haven't learned from it and the end results has been layoffs due to a significant loss of customers. Here again the little guy gets hurt while theses same corporate execs move on to destroy another company with their half witted ideas that don't work or their inability to show proven results

"85 hr work week"?? That comes out to more than 12 hours a day, every day. You'd barely have time to eat, sleep, and take a sh--. Ever. Seriously, who would want this? I'd sooner drown myself in a vat of Cheetos dust.

Not gonna lie, the people who make the decisions to sink millions into redundant IT projects with weak business cases are not the mid-level IT people/project managers who were fired. It was the business. You can bust your a-- but you wont deliver value if the premise upon which your project was based is wrong (or in many cases nonexistent)

Unless you have a degree, no more working your way to the top. They do not want anyone staying long enough to get retirement

You sound very different from managers I have experienced

I agree sales people have better personalities and skills

Many of the IT lower level managers I reported to were verbally abusive with no people skills

The goals at the very top are quite different from the goals anywhere else in the company. Simply increasing revenues and profits would seem an obvious goal, but it is not always the case. Extracting "value" from the company often precedes long term goals.

Doing this will cause execs to make decisions which do not further long term revenue and profit goals. An example is share buybacks, where every corporation in America is buying back their own shares with every penny they have and can borrow and has been doing so since around 2010.

Does this promote long term revenue growth? Not in the least! In fact it undermines long term revenue growth, but it accomplishes a goal execs have, which is attracting big investors to buy stock of the company which makes the company "more valuable" due to a sky high stock price.

The best HQ Employee's I've ever worked with always worked their way from the field. Usually incredible stories. To break out of the field and get to a big HQ role you have to be in the top % of the workforce.

Thread regarding PepsiCo Inc. (Pepsi) layoffs

Layoff perspective from my HQ perspective

7 replies (most recent on top)

Post a reply