If anyone has seen a lot of layoffs around them have you noticed a trend if only a few people in a group get cut? Like performance, tenure, seniority or salary ?
12 replies (most recent on top)
My understanding is location, years of service, performance rating and then randomized number for tiebreaker
@k6 has it right - saved me writing pretty much the same thing -
From what I've seen and heard, it is a combination of location, remote (with or without an exception - but those with an exception seem to be targeted first) and age.
Everyone I've talked to who've been laid off and know of those laid off this seems to be a high percentage.
The person that "needs" to be cut the most at WF is Shart.
Lots of misinformation.
Cuts can be for a variety of reasons. The key, the rationale should be consistent across the group if multiple cuts are being made.
For example, you are in a group of 10. They need to cut 4. They may first establish a criteria that is performance based. Anyone who received a 2 in their last performance review is first up. Regardless of age, income, etc - if you got a 2 you are out. Let's say that was 3 people.
Since you need to cut one more, they will need a new criteria. That may be location. If you have someone who is still around and remote they would then cut that person to get to their magic number.
If it's not location it could be position title or duties or other job related criteria.
Finally, if none of those broad categories cover all the displacements the manager (or their manager) will be required to stack rank their employees, grading them across multiple criteria. That criteria is job family based and provided by HR. The manager can include additional criteria once approved by HR. In our example, there are 7 employees left. Each employee is graded 1 to 7 in each category. Based off how that shakes out, the list is sent to HR for their review. The lowest scoring person is then reviewed for displacement.
This is all done to reduce the probability of a lawsuit. WF isn't going after old employees. They aren't rounding up people based of skin color or gender. They need to use criteria that won't expose them to legal action. It is true that criteria may have the effect of displacing all older employees or employees of a certain gender.
What has been really interesting to me, in all of my times doing displacements, the most common rationale is budget cuts. I have never been allowed to consider compensation as a factor. I've had spreads of employees that varied by $100K+/year. You would think if the goal was to reduce expense you might want to target the higher paid employees. Not my experience at all. They may get displaced but that again is due to other factors, not their comp.
Source for my information ... 20+ years experience at WF - most in management. Lots and lots of displacements over my career.
The fun part would be to be a young worker that gets S canned, not because you're not great at your job or because you make "too much money", but so WF can point to your term as a legal defense against age discrimination suits. 😐
With our team they cut the oldest. Seems to be trend. Younger people are also being cut, but it's pretty obvious they are going after older and better paid.
The first cuts in my area were due to the location strategy. And I feel as if the replacements were being hired in India. So, they are able to cut costs on pay.
I was offered a relocation package, but the locations offered were not ideal for me. When I offered an alternative location, which would be cost effective to me and a location that my group had a presence in, I was told no.
So I feel as if the strategy for my group was definitely based on cost measures.
In the end, I’m much happier at my new company. So, thanks Chuck. I found a place where candor isn’t cutthroat and management values their employees!
Cuts can be due to non-critical roles and skills assessments. It is not always the highest paid or most senior. Agree that lower visibility projects are a factor.
never noticed much of a pattern when they tossed me a a 53 year old guy. I guess I didn't care, but yay, they kept the 63 year old guy so wouldn't get sued for ageism......
but, to be honest, retirement isn't so bad..... your mileage may vary.
Cheers!
What I seen, it's a lot to do with salary of there is one reason to identify. Usually the older the person, the higher the salary, which is why it looks like some sort of ageism. Other than that, it's random outside of location strategy.
I haven’t noticed a concrete pattern but usually it’s 1. Politics (favoritism) and 2. ROI (in WF’s opinion does your salary match your contribution? Performance is also considered but I’ve seen extremely high performers laid off seemingly because they were very senior, paid well, and weren’t working on such high profile projects