What teams actually design and plan these layoffs within Ford? Do my engineering LL6's, 5's and 4's have visibility or involvement in planning? Do they know beforehand?
16 replies (most recent on top)
Well this is actually more complicated than one might imagine. Yes, some decisions are made by higher up LLs but depending on the LLs normalized hierarchy in a group, the decisions get more complicated. LL normalized hierarchy simply means some higher up LLs have less years at the company than lower LLs - there are some formulas used to determine the normalized hierarchy (not disclosed here). IF a lower LL has a normalized hierarchy than a higher LL, the lower LL may be able to make the decision. Typically, most decesions are made by the higher up LL (~60-70%) but there are cases (~30%) where the normalized hierarchy would place the decision in the hands of the lower LL. Not sure if this helps clarify the original question?
@jbe Yeah some LL5 create lists on their own or with the assistance of pet LL6. Ford doesn’t have the healthiest of cultures. It’s a large company with many different personalities and ‘leadership’ styles
My LL6 said he knew nothing about the GSR that was let go in our group. I’d buy he was being genuine. He was asking us if we had his contact info.
My entire R&A (research) team got hit…
Very suspicious… but it wasn’t about employee ranking.
My LL4 was dealing with those where we’re safe, let the executive director call those who were immediately let go and all access to systems were cutoff.
@kgu+1nlhiTDO yes those ranking of employees are fed into the decisions. Many months later (and iterations of revisions from layers above) out pops the result. Source: my cousin who is a retired LL4. It always annoyed him when an LL6 flagged his/her bonehead buddies as critical skill/or best employee. He tried to correct those issues when he had first hand knowledge but there were just too many people under him to make adjustments to the entire list.
SIRP'ed LL6, I was not asked to provide names or knew anything about the process last August. Barring one employee, everyone (including me) was let go the same day. The tricky thing is they may have asked someone to rank employees or provide feedback 3-4 months ago, so the it is hard to connect the feedback to these mass firings.
@yoy or more likely he was a willing participant with the cuts LL5 and below but not involved with the cut decisions LL4 and above. This is the way of things in a hierarchical old school company.
@ldx same. The LL5 asked each LL6 to provide that data to him, he collated the data and shipped it upwards. I think most LL5 don’t want to admit their involvement in the process, as they think there would then be animosity between them and the team. Instead we clock them as liars.
given my LL4 was one of the ones cut I am sure it was higher then him on the decision.
My LL5 was asked a few months ago to make a by name list of their people and skills. Identify people who are business critical and jobs that are critical. The list went up the chain. Few months later a list comes down the chain. Bang! --- your dead.
@rjk+1nlhiTDO There is both truth and non-truth in the statement.
The old “garbage in garbage out”. The input data determines the output data.
If the input data says 200 people do the same job, the output data is fire the highest cost.
If the input data says 10 people do job A, 5 people do job B, 5 people do job C, 175 people do job D then each job is treated separately by the algorithm.
LL5 have gamed the system to protect their favorites. And have successfully swapped names on lists coming down from above. In one example an LL5 swapped LL6 names on a list in 2019 to protect their buddies. Last year the new LL5 did not swap those same LL6’s names and they were cut.
They use an algorithm generated by Boston Consulting Group.
The script from last August says the firing was because the person didn't have the "breadth of skill" needed for the future direction the company is going with EV, mobility, etc.
It's BS! The selection process has nothing to do with skills. It has nothing to do with performance. It's all about money! The algorithm selects people based on how much money they can save. Naturally, the experienced employees cost more, but Ford got burned with an age discrimination lawsuit a few years ago. Now the algorithm spreads the firings more evenly across demographics to avoid lawsuits. Even so, they still fire people they know have grounds to sue if the expected settlement amount is less than the cost reduction from the firing.
They've let go a lot of great people go and held on to a ton of b-holes. They think outside tech talent will save them. I think Ford is doomed.
Nearly All LL5 provided the candidate lists upward, later reviewed and suggested revisions to the cascaded lists. The revised lists were reviewed by HR and management, sometimes the revisions were accepted sometimes not.
Yes LL5 want you to believe it was all out of their control.
Yes LL6 want you to believe it was all out of their control but where do the the LL5 get their lists? Likely from interactions with the LL6.
Now in the cases where entire areas were cut, what happened there was LL5 was told about a month ago the entire area would be cut, find another position or you will be cut also.
In both the August and this week's separations, my LL4s had no input. They were provided a list of names and a script. We do not have an LL3, so that leaves the LL2 as a prime selection suspect. Not sure if he selected or was given a list generated by an algorithm.
These layoffs are the first we have seen of entire section / department separations. Not surprising, after they changed the PEP policy last fall to allow for entire group PEPs.
The LL6s I know learned about these layoffs from the news reports and had no say whatsoever. The LL5s were tight lipped but seemed to know a little more.
My LL6 was kept in the dark. Not sure if he survived…