I'd be fine with layoffs if they actually targeted the right people. But it's never been about performance. The best workers keep getting let go.
9 replies (most recent on top)
Citi’s Hunger Games have a simple rule: merit gets you nominated; favouritism and nepotism decide who survives.
I love how the most popular comments keeping getting censored by the mods, which is fine but doesn’t change the fact that Indians are running this bank into the ground
No it should never be just about performance.
That would be a nonsensical people strategy
There’s other factors as others have mentioned
Jeezus
What do you mean Only "one of these people is in your management chain above" ??
Try 75% to 100% are in the "management" chain above in addition to your coworkers on your same C-Level.
@bb Probably the most correct answer. Especially if one of these people is in your management chain above. They have to clean house for their family/friends.3
You and the OP are thinking logically. Sh!tibank is NOT and Never will be logical.
When the competitor laid you off and gave you a list of reasons, you probably fell into more than only one reason for being laidoff.
Probably at least 2 reasons/variables.
Score assessments are used to rank employees in teams. But, it is combined with other factors such as location strategy, stakeholder presence, cost etc.
There are various strategies. I was targeted because I was remote. Citi made me remote btw by closing my site. Despite over 10 years remote as a high performer, RTO pushed me out.
Sometimes it is. It's various, and they never really pin point.
When I was laid off from a competitor, my package stated you were selected because of one of these categories:
Tenure
Performance
Need for role
It didn't say which category I fell into, but it did give categories. I'm not sure if Citi is the same.