Anyone know of managers who are appealing the data-driven decisions because they don't like how they were impacted? For instance, people left at end of April but not included in HC reduction because the cutoff is May 1. Or managers who didn't know that SSL4 would be used as criteria for cut and don't like the results. I've heard of a few cases this week and wonder how much of this is going on. Seems like exceptions for some could mean upset for others.
12 replies (most recent on top)
@HBOIGx9-agp: Question: As a manager, how are you handling VSP discussions?
I've had these talks with my manager and frankly he appears a bit shellshocked. He knows I'm thinking about it (presently 70/30 for taking it), and I know others in the group have already taken it but don't know who. All he can tell me is that this process is purely HR-driven and that no one in our group has any impact. I was S w/SSL3 in Focal 16, and no issues came up in my Focal discussion as far as my performance.
I have one job, and that is to make sure a couple dozen other people can do theirs. I've excelled at that for most of my Intel career, and my manager agrees. He acknowledges the intense hit the group will take if I either take the VSP or the VSP-to-ISP rumors are true and I end up getting walked out anytime between June 3 and June 30.
Thing is, I love my job. Always have. And I'm not ready to leave. There are evolutions I want to see through to fruition. It truly sucks to be in this spot through no fault of my own other than being a big number on someone's algorithm spreadsheet. There's no performance issue with me; if there was my manager would tell me, doesn't make sense not to.
Either way, i am grateful that at least I can transition the remainder of my group with some cross-training so short-term chaos doesn't ensue. The group will survive without me; it'll just be harder for a while until things return to a new normal. Regardless of how I go I'll miss it, but as I've already told my manager I will NOT do the perp walk (and yes, that's what it is). If I get walked out people will be following me, whatever that looks like...
CrazyTalk-- where has it ever been officially documented by Intel to the general employee population that stock level would be used for layoffs? I don't recall seeing it. On leaks etc, yes, but you can't blame employees for not knowing.
Fully agree with HBOIGx9-lpb
How an employee can get a 'Successful' and still get laid off citing performance reasons is what I don't understand. SSL is not a rating, its what the manager decided to give the employee because at the end of the day, its a zero sum game - some employees get ssl 1/2 hence some will get ssl4/5 just to meet the budget. This is likely to happen every year! So its not a true reflection of an employee's work. And people know that there's a Lot of hand-waving going on in the stock level distributions. Manager to manager, ratings are not consistent across Intel. So obviously a LOT of good employees are getting laid off. I think its just plain stupid of Intel.
@HBOIGx9-agp - Yes and the use of Successful / SL4 in 2015 as the criterion for laying people off was widely criticized as being an inappropriate, stupid and discriminatory way of identifying people to get rid of. Whjch is why it makes so little sense to use it again in 2016. But I've come to expect so little from Intel leadership.
Managers gave their employees SL4 for any number of good and bad reasons, following guidelines or not. Some of us pushed back when we received SL4 for reasons that don't make sense (e.g. "You're new and new people in their jobs get SL4"). I certainly did. At the end of the day, though, managers - good, bad and somewhere in between - have an awful lot of power and sometimes exercise it in arbitrary and capricious ways.
What's done is done. To me it makes no sense other than Intel is trying to shed expensive employees.
And I'm glad to be out of there!
That is the question those people want answers to.
@HBOIGx9-fya How could it be possible that someone else changed SSL after a manager did the work?
Folks,
Last year Intel folks were released because of SSL4 and lower ratings and BK indicated that this is part of our future, so don't act like victims now. Managers knew this would be the impact, but are required to provide a fair assessment of resources for Focal. A good manager would tell folks, that if they disagree with the =<SSL4 to open door it. In my case none did.
On the appeal of the ISP, managers can appeal the decision. but are discouraged from doing it. The impacted resources can do it too, but most folks that do say I'm a victim, rather than providing solid evidence that the manager was off base.
Pull it together folks. There have been warnings and last year was the wakeup call. Did you listen?Take control of your career and make sh-- happen rather than blaming your failure on your manager.
So by now you can tell I'm a manager. Two folks down and some with VSP. It's killing me to lay off folks and to have the VSP discussions. But here we are. Take this and figure out how to kick some assrather than blaming your failure on the system or your manger. Take accountability for where you are at and make something great happen. Or sit here and play the victim card. Which way will get you to retirement with more $$ and a great life?
It's up to you.
Crazy
Told by a VP today that nobody was told stock lvl 4 would get targeted, but given that lvl 5 aligns with IR that it was reasonable to be concerned if you got lvl 4 if layoffs came
For the appeal, the employee was supposed to file the appeal, not the manager.
I've heard that some managers gave SSL3 but "someone" changed it to SSL4 so the employee would get ISP
In my case, the Successful / SL4 was a passive aggressive way for my manager to screw me over without having to have any proof or documentation of me having done anything but exceptional work. So no she didn't appeal when I was sent out...