From what I've been reading, it doesn't matter if you are among the best or worst performers. When it comes to layoffs, it's all about how old you are and how much you make. Is this true? If it is true, then why should any of us bother giving it our all for work when the bare minimum provides us with the same results?
14 replies (most recent on top)
I was told it wasn’t performance.
Everyone is told that they were let go not for performance reasons.
When I was laid off from Cisco it was a matter of duplication due to merging departments. My performance review was exemplary and I was told it wasn’t performance. With so many acquisitions, I suspect duplication of roles is a common reason.
All of us are good enough to the work, so performance is no matter to the LR.
No, mainly age and your salary. If you are around 50+ there is a target on you. Same if you are over 50% of your pay range
For performance to matter you actually have to measure something useful, and for many of the engineering teams the metrics were dashboards chosen for their ease of implementation. Management said point blank they didn't know what we did and didn't want to know, so don't help anyone because if they "feel better" about the person you helped "you" (everyone in the all hands meetings) were the next out the door. For a company that rewards "bugs disposed of per week" many literally write themselves a minivan.
For anyone looking seriously at how to improve metrics, start by studying Goodhart's Law.
It comes down to cost. We're given a number to reduce our OpEx by and usually we would pick people who have the least amount of impact to the business. Even a top performer might not be the best well rounded fit for a team.
When the company is run based on politics and not performance, when the leadership team is low performers themselves, of course the layoffs are not based on performance.
Nope. I was part of the Feb. layoff and never missed my quota in 6+ years there. Heard several people that even made Sales Champion last year got hit in Feb. too.
Everyone at Cisco is at risk at any time. For an ELT so braggy about their "culture", they sure built one of the most toxic in the industry.
Oh, and customers see this bs too.
For me, I was told who was selected and it was based on cost. Expensive locations, CA, EMEA were a large part. Zero to do with performance. That said I know other poor performers did get selected. So I think this is used to clean house sometimes.
What I noticed during the last layoff in our country:
*Has your business unit performed well?
*Does the Senior Director/VP like you (are you a brown noser)?
*Have you ever had a conflict with your manager?
*Did you ever open an HR/Ethics case?
*How old are you? (They make sure to lay off younger people too to balance out the age average.)
In the end, how much the decision-maker likes you plays a big role.
In my experience, it’s really about money. Of course, poor performers but in the end, they want to cut OPEX, so it’s really about cost. Even Scott corrected himself, it’s not about 7% of employees, it’s about 7% of cost.
From what I've been reading,
You have been reading it where? On thelayoff.com? Lol.
Of course layoff bad performers and keep good performers! LRed losers do not want others laugh at them so keep spreading the rumors…
think it does since leaders are already pressing teams to think of how we can do things differently to value add. Those with no ideas = LR/PIP? lol what a co, disastrous