We had a meeting with a VP and he said that each department needed to hit a target( I assume in terms of cutting cost) and that is how lay offs were decided. Honestly looking at those who were let go, I am so confused how these names are being pulled! Anyone has any ideas on how they decide? We had random people from random positions let go! From Sr Dir to Admin person to just low rank operation and administration to engineers.... How it is being decided? I heard they are chopping off from duplicate roles and Sr Dir levels but I heard they let go of one single principal researcher! I heard they let go of ETWs but then I see some clerk and admin people with 5+ years are gone... Anyone know how these are being decided?
13 replies (most recent on top)
@fnu deferred liability
@ptz two words: outside consultants
“The leader can restructure the org to have fewer/consolidated functions thereby creating a brand new role with different responsibilities. They then can choose which of their managers get that role and the others are RIF’d.”
Thinking about org timings through the last year means this has been planned since august at minimum… how is doing this not obvious and also a huge liability?
@jfw might be the best explanation I've heard
I’ve been through this before as a leader at Nike so sharing my understanding of the general process. Note - I am not part of it this round which is likely telling.
Liability is consideration #1. This drives much of the decision making. Layoffs are supposed to be because a role or function is no longer needed not a performance based recalibration.
When they start with leadership, which appears to be the case now (not for all though), they first look at roles - not ppl - that do not meet span of control. SoC requirements seem to vary but are usually a minimum of 4-5 direct FTE reports. Roles that don’t meet SoC pop up as first ones eligible for RIF. In spirit this is supposed to be roles only at this stage but human nature means it likely isn’t. They also identify redundant or outdated functions for RIF.
Once roles and functions are identified then they look at names but they can’t necessarily swap one person for another because a layoff means the role is no longer needed. If they layoff a poor performer in a role but keep a high performer and put them in as a replacement then it opens them up to liability.
Favoritism does run rampant through the process though because there are many loopholes and opportunities to maneuver around the “rules”. Example - an org has too many managers so many don’t meet SoC. The leader can restructure the org to have fewer/consolidated functions thereby creating a brand new role with different responsibilities. They then can choose which of their managers get that role and the others are RIF’d.
There are many variations to this process and some follow the rules to the T and others flex around the rules so results may vary.
The reason they don’t repurpose talent is really sad - typically leaders give HR an extremely tight turnaround to give them headcount based on the criteria listed earlier (CFE, role related to company strategy). This results in HR teams who are overstretched, exhausted, demoralized and burnt out but just following orders because they want to keep their jobs too.
No one goes into a career in HR wanting to do this type of work with such flimsy rationale. It also, of course, leads to HR partnership with Deloitte that isn’t thoughtful or thorough, it’s just trying to cut heads as quickly as possible. I mean, we all know how political CFE can be. The ratings can be totally useless. And, we all know how Nike never sees strategy through and can change goals on the turn of a dime. The whole process stinks to high heaven.
Bottom line, if you’re let go, it has NOTHING to do with you as a person. It was a hatchet job from the very beginning because nike is trying to save face with Walk Street and come across as “efficient”.
@shz+1pXKQJih Right? I had glowing reviews from all stakeholders and the only feedback was to work with me MORE. Have had success in a variety of spaces in this industry transferable to multiple teams and roles and not even given a chance. Cool story.
@hxt+1pXKQJih What about those of us who have had exceptional CFEs? Why not repurpose talent?
I can’t tell you how I know, but there are rankings in terms of how important your role is (related to company strategy) and the last few years on CFE. If you’ve had a poor CFE at any time, you’re ripe for layoff, unfortunately.
@nbb older and higher up are more expensive but really more tenure? You usually make more jumping companies / coming in from the outside so I imagine that’s also a factor.
@nbb+1pXKQJih Agree on head of NSRL! He needs to go!
People with more time at the company are also older and likely more expensive....if they cut one of those positions they have to cut another person who's younger - in order to avoid an age descrimination lawsuit. The fact is that the people who need actually need to go don't get cut- I can think of several senior designers, the head of the NSRL and a few other folks with family ties. It's a broken record that doesn't make sense to rational people.
You need to be well known, well liked, have personal relationships with decision makers that help your job or team, have tenure (because it takes time to build those things) and not have ever rubbed anyone the wrong way.
Otherwise you’re at risk