How do companies choose who to layoff?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My employer first considered which departments were bloated. Ex. HR and marketing, but not legal or tax. Then they asked managers in those departments for a list of people in roles that, if eliminated, wouldn’t have much of an impact on operations. In some cases, these were low performers but in others, it was the job that caused the elimination, not the person. HR reviewed the lists to ensure there weren’t too many people that could create appearances of discrimination.

Reviewing the list for the “appearance of discrimination” is literally racial/sex based discrimination itself.

Dp. And yet that’s what happens at every major company, with oversight by legal and thereby making it privileged.

And fwiw, age is the factor that’s typically the largest focus these days

[Anonymous]

When faced with budget cuts, you fight like hell to keep the best people.

Seniority doesn’t matter. You don’t keep someone just because they have worked there longer.

You keep the people who always show up, work hard, demonstrate productivity (to the point you would panic if you lost them), don’t bring drama, and won’t complain when they need to pick up the slack.

Salaries matter as well. The middle managers and highest paid admins who don’t pull their weight are always at risk.

Bottom line: it’s never “last one in, first one out.” Such an approach assumes loyalty rather than business decisions, and businesses base such decisions on business decisions.

PS - The layoffs at my company have been relatively easy since the people who barely worked were the ones cut loose.

[Anonymous]

My company changed the distribution of annual ratings, making it very hard to get the top, most people in the middle, and the lowest performers in the bottom bucket. People in the bottom bucket could be exempted from being fired here and there, but otherwise, they were all let go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When faced with budget cuts, you fight like hell to keep the best people.

Seniority doesn’t matter. You don’t keep someone just because they have worked there longer.

You keep the people who always show up, work hard, demonstrate productivity (to the point you would panic if you lost them), don’t bring drama, and won’t complain when they need to pick up the slack.

Salaries matter as well. The middle managers and highest paid admins who don’t pull their weight are always at risk.

Bottom line: it’s never “last one in, first one out.” Such an approach assumes loyalty rather than business decisions, and businesses base such decisions on business decisions.

PS - The layoffs at my company have been relatively easy since the people who barely worked were the ones cut loose.

This is only partially accurate. It’s definitely not LIFO, but if you’re the one overseeing the layoffs and people are advocating for specific employees, you may listen a little, but there are other factors that go into play. Your advocacy counts a little, but often not very much

[Anonymous]

OP here. In this case, the first line manager and Director of the Dept did not know about the layoffs, or have any say in who was let go. I don’t know if that’s the norm or not.

[Anonymous]

PS: thanks for all the replies and input!

[Anonymous]

Low performers are the easy ones, they get cut unless they are somehow doing a crucial and hard to replace function. Then it’s the people who are sharing job functions with someone else and the people whose entire project is getting cut. After that it’s the people who are generally unlikable for some reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. In this case, the first line manager and Director of the Dept did not know about the layoffs, or have any say in who was let go. I don’t know if that’s the norm or not.

That may or may not be true.

Sometimes the supervisor or manager are directly involved in the decision but hide behind a more senior person making the decision. It’s a way to preserve trust for those who remain (make leadership or HQ or whomever is at the top of the food chain the bad guy).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. In this case, the first line manager and Director of the Dept did not know about the layoffs, or have any say in who was let go. I don’t know if that’s the norm or not.

That may or may not be true.

Sometimes the supervisor or manager are directly involved in the decision but hide behind a more senior person making the decision. It’s a way to preserve trust for those who remain (make leadership or HQ or whomever is at the top of the food chain the bad guy).

I was wondering about that. Though sad, it makes sense .

[Anonymous]

I worked for a company that was acquired by VC. The new owners hired a McKinsey type company that went through the org and all job titles/job descriptions and developed a new org chart that they said would be the best for the future of the business based on revenue targets and returning shareholder value. The new org chart determined who was axed. High performers, low performers, it didnt matter. If your current job wasnt on the new org chart you were axed.

[Anonymous]

In my org, if you make above, say, $150K in base comp annually and/or have a title or role that might block the retention or hiring of star performers, you have to be pulling your weight. Sometimes high performers ask for support employees who are not strictly necessary to show their clout--again, a risky role. Someone who underperforms in ways that are obvious and make them less likable, such as being unresponsive to colleagues over email--those people get laid off too.

[Anonymous]

To the, “ it’s not personal” posters, it certainly can be. Dh is in management and works for a mid size company of around 2k, when it comes to RIF one manager is know for hiring his buddies, regardless of competency, and then protecting them during layoffs. My Dh focuses on who gives him the most bang for the least amount of headache, if he can get rid of a problem person he absolutely will do so but “never” at the detriment of the project.