Does anyone know what the criteria is for the layoffs ?
8 replies (most recent on top)
Sounds like a real blowhard.
@2cxy+1mvCGvcF- Do you know something that we don't? Has anything been leaked out to the Tech media channels? The way the company is going, it is clear that those who are 'liked' by the leadership team are staying. Does anyone know of a employment lawyer or solicitor in the UK? I feel like a lot of the team members can benefit from such service.
@2cxy+1mvCGvcF Source?
There was a list put together by the most senior management, a couple or three weeks in advance. But not too far ahead so that the word leaked out to the employees.
The criteria were as follows:
- Each team had to have at least one person let go
- Managers (VPs) made recommendations based on their orgs’ teams - who would provide the least impact overall by being let go / which teams could be easily folded under other team leads
- Overall functions - which function is needed the least and / or could be taken over or absorbed by others
- Subjective - which employees had strong opinions and were outspoken about their views on how best to do things vs. management. Also to some degree if someone was “liked” by management or not
- Contribution level - in SOME cases, a person’s level of contribution to the company was considered. A few layoffs were relatively performance-based, but in the VAST majority of cases performance was NOT a factor
- Top leadership (really just a few C-level folks) was the final “arbiter” of who got axed or not
Final decisions & instructions were then communicated DOWNWARD to VPs and people managers and talking points provided for layoff conversations.
Other than initial ideas and discussions with management for the layoff candidate lists, VPs held no real culpability in the layoff decisions. They were just the executors of the scheme.
The way this has been managed has been appalling. No respect for employees at all...
There was probably a ki-l list, put together by your senior managers, weeks to a month prior.
The way this has been handled is appalling. It seems like those who are 'liked' by senior leaders are 'safe'. So unethical!!
Definitely in the case of some people, especially in marketing, it ultimately came down to whether top management liked you or not. It had nothing to do with your competence or past/current contributions to the company.
Also for marketing leadership, if you were hired in thr ast year or so you were safe.
Other teams like sales may have had different criteria.