Do direct supervisors get the final say since they are the ones who are supposed to know best who are the real contributors and who are not or is it somebody up the chain who knows nothing more about the people he or she is deciding on than their name and pay?
Considering who gets laid off and who stays all the time, I doubt it's the first one.
You are ranked by your leader. In many cases, a 5th level makes the selection, based on business case. If your leader agrees, everything is ok. If your leader thinks someone else should have been selected, there will be so much moaning, and eventually everything will be ok.
I'm an L2 supervisor and been through many surpluses as well as the recent outsourcing. I did not get input into multiple surpluses nor on the outsourcing decision for my folks. I did get input into 1 of the surpluses, I think it really depends on if the L3 wants involvement.
In the AT&T world the decision is made by housekeeping who enter the up or down plunger icon next to your name.
In IT services, not sure what’s really going on, but there doesn’t seem to be the possibility of any layoffs since there is still hiring in my sector. There is never the threat of downsizing nor ever any rumors. Apparently, no eyes on this group!
Generally what happens in management is that a headcount reduction number is determined at an EVP or CEO level. At that point, they generally "spread the peanut butter" evenly (as McFresh likes to say) evenly to the orgs under them. So if they are supposed to lose 1000, and one of their orgs has 25% of their headcount, that org will absorb 25% of the reduction as well.
This happens all the way down to the VP/ED level. I will say that from my observation, very little thought is given to things like how efficient each organization already is, if some have better leaders and are already optimized, or if one group has already taken its share of cuts (say, before being transferred). It's just a spreadsheet number.
When it hits directors and 2nd line supervisors, they are basically told to do a 1-to-n ranking and take off the bottom X (whatever number they were allocated). By the time they get their number, it's usually a very quick process - a few days if that - to get these people marked in the surplus system. Even if notices won't be given for a month or so, they need to "lock in" the names. That's not to say they can't add or take away one down the line, but they want these decisions made very quickly.
Only in rare cases is any sort of tactical decision about "who" made at a higher level than this. Individual pay - to my knowledge - has never been used in making individual decisions. One time, we were told that only 2nd line managers could be surplussed (i.e. our entire number had to be absorbed by 2nd lines). That really hurt because that's where the experience was, and 1st lines had to step up to fill in second line work. It seemed pretty obvious that that decision was made to reduce pay in addition to headcount. But no decision about individuals has been made that high up.
Directors are given a list in performance order with total number to eliminate. Then the discussion begins with the L2 managers. There are other players in place such as your progression of the training machine.
I was laid off in July. I was at the top of the stack ranking for performance and production. I was also at the top of pay due to the fact that it was performance based. My L2 was laid off at the end of 2019. She shared with me at that time that her L3 provided her with a number of people to remove from staff and a list of all those that could be terminated. She made the selection. There were no questions as to what her rationale was for letting people go. If you were on the list, you were releasable and legal had the manager's back. Precisely why the old New Jersey Mafioso Pack and Dallas HQ Cheerleader Teams are still intact. AT&T is a political mess. Folks like me were not part of the in-crowd so easier to release than other people that were friends and neighbors. Glad to be gone.
Your AM (L2) has the most input as to who on their team is axed. If they say they have no input (which is common) they are lying.
If you’re rated low performance wise, (you’re probably not here anymore anyway) but this makes it easy for them. All other things equal performance wise, more often than not it will wind up a popularity contest.
Few things:
1-Everyone at T's new HR database has a Risk factor, from 1 to 3.
2-Risk Management catalogs people with medical issues with exit dates
3- Legal are proactively assessing who is next based on income and seniority,
HR is notified, follow by managers are notified, in many instances managers had no input.
I don't think its that simple. I think salaries and responsibilities play into it.