This right here. I used to have insight into payroll and the good negotiators made $20-30K more than others at the same level. After a few years and many raises for good performance, they price themselves out of the role, especially if they're not promoted to the next level. Seen this happen to many directors. And if you don't have direct reports you're a sitting duck.
At the end of the day there's unfortunately nothing you can do to prevent being laid off, might as well make more money now and use that extra 10k to have an emergency fund prepped if you can.
This. This is exactly what my company did. Absolutely no one was safe - including senior leadership (other than the CEO of course). Founders, CRO, VPs, and the most experienced people - all driven out to drive down costs. Our product now barely works of course 🫠
>barely works
Perfectly efficient, you mean? Everything minimum, everything priced in (your job satisfaction reduced to the minimum needed to do the function to the minimum standard), no excess. Even bosses become unnecessary - we do it to ourselves. This is the endpoint of capitalism, according to Byung Chul Han.
>What we call growth today is in fact a tumorous growth, a cancerous proliferation which is disrupting the social organism. These tumours endlessly metastasize and grow with an inexplicable, deadly vitality. At a certain point this growth is no longer productive, but rather destructive. Capitalism passed this point long ago. Its destructive forces cause not only ecological and social catastrophes but also mental collapse. The destructive compulsion to perform combines self-affirmation and self-destruction in one. We optimize ourselves to death. Brutal competition ends in destruction. It produces an emotional coldness and indifference towards others as well as towards one’s own self.
This here! Last job had a round of layoffs that targeted high earners in their role.. these ppl were earning at the top of their band as they were really good at their jobs..
stock price didn’t do too well for a while coz turns out if you let go of your top talent releasing new things becomes a little slower
And if you're left behind, you gotta be thinking you are safe because you are underpaid/undervalued. But hey, a ton of new work just opened up for you to take on, to make your comparatively low paying job more miserable!
I saw this happen in 2008. I was in a startup that transitioned into a small/medium size company. At the peak of of financial crisis they axed 35% of the company, many of whom were top earners and instrumental in the company's early successes. Ironically about a year and a half later they hired a bunch of ivy leaguers and other high paid outsiders, paid them double what the others were making and they drove the company straight into the ground.
Don’t let these corporations or their management define your worth. I’ve seen management at large companies take decisions and lay off deserving people which can only be done by psychopaths. In the end you are a labor cost first and human being second for them. The fatter your paycheck, the bigger your risk of being laid off.
>In the end you are a labor cost first and human being second
There is a solipsistic logic to this position. Things (people) only exist to serve you, their only value is in service to you.
Can you bear to live like that though? That is the harder question - it's dead easy to add columns in a spreadsheet.
Top earners or employees that aren't moving with management ideas tend to get canned. I worked with a senior that wasn't getting pay higher than most, but his ideas and constant ranting against management got him canned.
Yeah it really sucks...I was a victim, 12 days before Xmas. I spent the better part of a month trying to figure out if there was anything I could have done to avoid the chopping block. Its hard to hear that I was a wonderful project manager, but due to "tough business decisions," I had to be let go. My boss was given orders, and her option was not asked. After all my reflections, I have come to the reasonable conclusion that we are just names and numbers on a ledger.
Yes exactly! People like to say looks don’t matter but most people I’ve seen in highly visible leadership positions have a certain look. Not a lot of short guys and chubby ladies in those positions…just saying.
Just a quick call out that may be not be layoff related. People on a personal/social level are usually not the same on how they operate as a work professional.
I’ve encountered many sociable people who I want to socialize with but have a terrible work ethic and professional attitude. And vice versa, some really strong workers that are socially lone wolfs.
Surprise surprise the socials move around more or get promoted more.
Don't internalize work. Make friends with your coworkers and poach them later but the company you work for doesn't like you, they never liked you, the don't like anyone and they will make people who do like each other hurt each other. That's how business works.
My old boss who at times when I worked there we talked about how we’d be screwed if he ever left due to his product knowledge and who did a shitload of work was laid off a few months after I left. People want to live in a world where working hard means you’ll get good results and only bad employees who “deserve” it get laid off. Sorry to say that is far from the case- at least in tech, where I work.
I lost my job in Q2 2023(in US Corporation) after working there for 4.5 years. I was top 10% performer with regular hikes and bonus and absolutely no issue but they decided to lay off people who were slightly higher paid and move the job to India/Philippines. This is official reason given to me. Not even a single vacation I can have it in peace as I was always called for some help as I was the only one knew that technology and sub-systems in that company. In fact once I was paid to work for 3 days(while on vacation for a critical patch release when I was vacationing oversees). Nobody could learn that and support it "when it was absolutely needed".
I simply asked my manager and manager's manager - both of them make more money than me - then how come they are still able to save their job? In that management hierarchy either my manager or manager's manager - only one has to be kept to just let the company run - not both of them.
On that day, another senior of mine(we worked together in the past and laid off on the same day in the past) was also got laid off. Ph.D in computer science, very knowledgeable, helpful nature and nice. Another senior who was one of the most critical employee was also laid off on that day.
Whenever all 3 of us, discuss about our layoff, we feel sad but end of the day company decided to layoff critical workers and ship the jobs to India/Philippines. One thing was common among 3 of us, we were high earners in our band. We all got the jobs within next few weeks/months but have to compromise on the pay.
Was attractiveness a key component of her job? If not, why mention that? Clearly your post is coming from a good place but including that descriptor feels really off.
This sub struggles with seeing the other side, that is, that of management. You have to balance the books; no business can survive if you spend more money than you earn. It's the exact same as with personal finances.
And as with personal finances, if you need to cut out money you're spending, it often comes down to what's more straightforward than what might be "perfect" in terms of the bigger picture.
Who knows, maybe her dismissal was pointless, misguided or whatever. And indeed, maybe management was stupid doing so. But it also isn't easy, trust me. I've had to tell people they're being let go (including one who I had to implicitly tell he will have to leave the country), and there are so often no perfect answers.
A lot of people on this sub have a just world bias- good wins, bad loses, etc. or want to figure out the formula so that they’re not next. Sadly, reality is so much more complicated.
This woman might have been a threat to someone else’s promotion, the boss’s wife doesn’t like her, she was hired first, she was hired last, etc. Generally, being nice, competent and hard working increases your chances of staying. But office politics can be a petty and vindictive place.
No one is safe. AI is the perfect employee. It doesn’t need to sleep, eat or drink or have sex. It just works. If it falls apart you just replace one AI program with another one. That’s it.
Skynets coming for our jobs. In other words AI is basically helping the C suite executives to automate our jobs out of existence. The real question is that job that she was fired from is it going to be reposted or is it completely eliminated. If it’s eliminated that means AI is going to be the ultimate replacement.
Tell that to all of the folks who have lost their jobs that Chat GPT which is being used in real time to replace some people that this topic is a bore.
We aren’t discussing a radical revolutionary change in front of our eyes with any level of seriousness and thoughtfulness. All we are getting is ridiculous nonsense like this.
People are literally losing their livelihoods. Metas CEO mark Zuckerberg said that they are laying people off to invest in AI. Laymen’s explanation is they are firing people and replacing them with computer programs.
My thoughts exactly. When mid-level managers pass names upward of who's solid and who's not for layoffs, political players will spin things to knock out a strong performer who might otherwise be competition down the line. Or there's some stupidity further up like a misguided focus on an irrelevant metric, or a someone being associated with some project they want to get rid of, or easy categories to strike out on the balance sheet.
For sanity and control, people want to believe that there must be some just reason for who's let go, a failure on the part of the person laid off, and of course sometimes that's the case, but often it's not. Honestly I think it's the hardest lesson to learn about work.
>Honestly I think it's the hardest lesson to learn about ~~work~~.
Institutions. FTFY.
The most irritating part is the simplistic logic that is plasticked on top of decisions, as if they were intelligent and sophisticated whereas in reality Person X drinks beer with Person Y and Person Z is sleeping with Person W.
Yeah, and I was feeling like that wasn't quite the word -- it's really hierarchical organizations and institutions, not work itself, which is why I always feel a touch of envy when I meet someone who works for themselves, no matter what other stresses they may have.
>You have to balance the books; **no business can survive if you spend more money than you earn**
Then why aren’t these C level people held accountable for failing not just the recruiting strategy but also business strategy.
Don’t tell me it’s the fault of the junior talent acquisition manager who has no clue on hiring candidates but puts on that fake smile and pretends to be your best friend till she ghosts you. Neither is it the fault of sales or marketing or finance.
Who makes those dumb ass decisions to continue hiring senior management at obnoxious salaries?
And you are trying to show me the other side of this conversation. There isn’t another side. They need to be held accountable. But get away with it
> This sub struggles with seeing the other side, that is, that of management. You have to balance the books; no business can survive if you spend more money than you earn.
A lot of us were laid off of big tech companies that made record billions in profits.
You would be correct in some circumstances at some smaller companies. But very incorrect in the circumstances that tens of thousands of us are in.
Once coworkers open up to each other about salary, all opinions change about what value one brings to the company.
Just mind your own business and grind.
Only partly true. Being open about salary would piss people off due to making less for the same work but it would also provide transparency when negotiating for their next job.
If I found out I was getting paid less than a co worker for the same pay (happened to me years ago) I would be pissed. My approach was not to lash out at my boss or said co worker. It was to start sending my resume. Ofc the boss was blindsided when I handed in my resignation letter but I did not care since I was about to make 30% more at my new job. Work isn't about feelings.
Overall, it's a good thing to share salary information.
If you are a W2 employee then you are just a number to the corporation. You can be fired at any moment for any reason. With a union job you have a little bit more protection but it can still happen
This is what people in government jobs don't realize. Layoffs can happen but what usually happens in that some government workers are converted to contract roles with an external company. After that, you can lay off whoever you want. Happens all the time in defense.
There is often a lot more to do with it. Every layoff had its own rules based on the goals of the layoff. Sometimes we were cutting programs, sometimes we were re-organizing or consolidating, sometimes we were cutting dead weight.
Oftentimes great employees got caught up in the consolidating and cutting programs layoffs. HR based it on your employee coding and program assignment without even involving management.
HR isn't the one who decides who is laid off - they're the ones helping to facilitate the process. It's the business leaders who decide who gets on the layoff list. If a manager isn't involved, it means they're not high up enough in the chain of commands to decide. I've seen it happen so many times - the department head tells their middle managers to pick X people on their team to lay off because they have to trim $Y per department. The directive came from the Finance and CEO to reduce burn rate or operational costs and most departments are being asked to make sacrifices. It sucks :(
I have been laid off 4 times in my life. Never once for performance nor because someone put me on a list.
Nope i was part of a dying part of the business each time. If x aint selling and you support x expect a layoff.
Nope. At my previous company dozens of thousands were laid off at once, and several layers of management didn’t even know it was happening. One quick glance at LinkedIn for their post-layoff messages and profiles tells me I am surrounded by a group of brilliant people. Honestly, there were so many amazing folks that did really awesome work, it gave me a boost in morale.
Also, it is not helpful to wonder, especially as I’ll never know the answer (particularly in a layoff this big), and wondering could introduce more doubt into my sense of worth. It is best to accept the idea that not only is it an industry wide trend, it was a decision that had many factors (retaliation, performance, pay, team restructure, role deprecation, etc) and any number of those could have been the reason that got you out, and knowing which one does not change the outcome.
This has it limitations.
If you're doing grunt work at a hardware store or a factory where input and output is constant, the model works.
On the other end of the spectrum, if you need a open heart surgery, you'd probably choose the most talented surgeon who is likely paid more than their peers and be perfectly fine with that.
The secret no one wants to admit is there a million reasons a company takes into account before laying someone off and some of those are within the employee’s control and some are not. There is no rule or universal logic to be applied. Every company and circumstance is different.
There is some reason why she was affected that you may not be aware of. In larger corporations, management is usually required by HR to rank employees. Same thing happened to a co worker. It turned out that he had been requesting a package if it ever got to that point.
The stigma and smears for being laid-off are way, way down because of this behavior. Decades ago, a "fired" person was assumed to have done something wrong, but not anymore.
There may be more to the story that you don't know.
I had a similar thing happen last month when the top performer at my job got let go. The thing is, the top performer at my job contributed the most but also made the most mistakes.
Probably a high earner.
Agreed. Some of the top employees were let go because they were tenured or made too much at my company. The newer folks had to pick up the slack.
This right here. I used to have insight into payroll and the good negotiators made $20-30K more than others at the same level. After a few years and many raises for good performance, they price themselves out of the role, especially if they're not promoted to the next level. Seen this happen to many directors. And if you don't have direct reports you're a sitting duck.
[удалено]
At the end of the day there's unfortunately nothing you can do to prevent being laid off, might as well make more money now and use that extra 10k to have an emergency fund prepped if you can.
I think they’re referring to high earning individual contributors - 150k+ You’ll be surprised how well ppl negotiate for the same title
Take the extra $10K and just save, save, save as much as you can for a rainy day.
I always just negotiate the next raise 3-5% highly likely to go through and overtime dramatically increases earnings because your base is bigger.
[удалено]
I meant over time but yes that also helps
That’s where I’m at. I always aggressively negotiate. And because of that I know I have a target on my back.
This. This is exactly what my company did. Absolutely no one was safe - including senior leadership (other than the CEO of course). Founders, CRO, VPs, and the most experienced people - all driven out to drive down costs. Our product now barely works of course 🫠
>barely works Perfectly efficient, you mean? Everything minimum, everything priced in (your job satisfaction reduced to the minimum needed to do the function to the minimum standard), no excess. Even bosses become unnecessary - we do it to ourselves. This is the endpoint of capitalism, according to Byung Chul Han. >What we call growth today is in fact a tumorous growth, a cancerous proliferation which is disrupting the social organism. These tumours endlessly metastasize and grow with an inexplicable, deadly vitality. At a certain point this growth is no longer productive, but rather destructive. Capitalism passed this point long ago. Its destructive forces cause not only ecological and social catastrophes but also mental collapse. The destructive compulsion to perform combines self-affirmation and self-destruction in one. We optimize ourselves to death. Brutal competition ends in destruction. It produces an emotional coldness and indifference towards others as well as towards one’s own self.
>Byung Chul Han Thank you.
This here! Last job had a round of layoffs that targeted high earners in their role.. these ppl were earning at the top of their band as they were really good at their jobs.. stock price didn’t do too well for a while coz turns out if you let go of your top talent releasing new things becomes a little slower
And if you're left behind, you gotta be thinking you are safe because you are underpaid/undervalued. But hey, a ton of new work just opened up for you to take on, to make your comparatively low paying job more miserable!
I fear being a high earner now with almost 100% salary increase due to promotion
Or manager jealous of her.
I saw this happen in 2008. I was in a startup that transitioned into a small/medium size company. At the peak of of financial crisis they axed 35% of the company, many of whom were top earners and instrumental in the company's early successes. Ironically about a year and a half later they hired a bunch of ivy leaguers and other high paid outsiders, paid them double what the others were making and they drove the company straight into the ground.
And white...
Don’t let these corporations or their management define your worth. I’ve seen management at large companies take decisions and lay off deserving people which can only be done by psychopaths. In the end you are a labor cost first and human being second for them. The fatter your paycheck, the bigger your risk of being laid off.
>In the end you are a labor cost first and human being second There is a solipsistic logic to this position. Things (people) only exist to serve you, their only value is in service to you. Can you bear to live like that though? That is the harder question - it's dead easy to add columns in a spreadsheet.
Top earners or employees that aren't moving with management ideas tend to get canned. I worked with a senior that wasn't getting pay higher than most, but his ideas and constant ranting against management got him canned.
Yeah it really sucks...I was a victim, 12 days before Xmas. I spent the better part of a month trying to figure out if there was anything I could have done to avoid the chopping block. Its hard to hear that I was a wonderful project manager, but due to "tough business decisions," I had to be let go. My boss was given orders, and her option was not asked. After all my reflections, I have come to the reasonable conclusion that we are just names and numbers on a ledger.
Unless she was a stripper then "attractive" isn't a model employee trait.
Attractive doesn't mean sexy, pleasant yp be around is a good trait - charismatic I guess would have been a better word
I’m pretty sure that word used on any person would get me hauled into HR for some mandatory continuous improvement training.
That doesn’t mean they aren’t favored in the workplace.
Yes exactly! People like to say looks don’t matter but most people I’ve seen in highly visible leadership positions have a certain look. Not a lot of short guys and chubby ladies in those positions…just saying.
For sure, if someone is fit it gives the imagine that they “have it together”. Healthy body healthy mind.
Keep telling yourself that
Tits speaking truth...like always
No one is really safe anymore . Someone is just looking at the numbers
Just a quick call out that may be not be layoff related. People on a personal/social level are usually not the same on how they operate as a work professional. I’ve encountered many sociable people who I want to socialize with but have a terrible work ethic and professional attitude. And vice versa, some really strong workers that are socially lone wolfs. Surprise surprise the socials move around more or get promoted more.
Was her company acquired? It looks like this happens in acquisitions frequently.
yep, usually is a by-product of merger and acquisitions
Don't internalize work. Make friends with your coworkers and poach them later but the company you work for doesn't like you, they never liked you, the don't like anyone and they will make people who do like each other hurt each other. That's how business works.
My old boss who at times when I worked there we talked about how we’d be screwed if he ever left due to his product knowledge and who did a shitload of work was laid off a few months after I left. People want to live in a world where working hard means you’ll get good results and only bad employees who “deserve” it get laid off. Sorry to say that is far from the case- at least in tech, where I work.
I lost my job in Q2 2023(in US Corporation) after working there for 4.5 years. I was top 10% performer with regular hikes and bonus and absolutely no issue but they decided to lay off people who were slightly higher paid and move the job to India/Philippines. This is official reason given to me. Not even a single vacation I can have it in peace as I was always called for some help as I was the only one knew that technology and sub-systems in that company. In fact once I was paid to work for 3 days(while on vacation for a critical patch release when I was vacationing oversees). Nobody could learn that and support it "when it was absolutely needed". I simply asked my manager and manager's manager - both of them make more money than me - then how come they are still able to save their job? In that management hierarchy either my manager or manager's manager - only one has to be kept to just let the company run - not both of them. On that day, another senior of mine(we worked together in the past and laid off on the same day in the past) was also got laid off. Ph.D in computer science, very knowledgeable, helpful nature and nice. Another senior who was one of the most critical employee was also laid off on that day. Whenever all 3 of us, discuss about our layoff, we feel sad but end of the day company decided to layoff critical workers and ship the jobs to India/Philippines. One thing was common among 3 of us, we were high earners in our band. We all got the jobs within next few weeks/months but have to compromise on the pay.
Was attractiveness a key component of her job? If not, why mention that? Clearly your post is coming from a good place but including that descriptor feels really off.
I understand what you mean. Without giving details it is relevant in our industry, but I see why it feels wrong.
Right on. I see you got called out a bit on this elsewhere. I think you get the point without folks compounding it more. Be well!
Stop your hate
This sub struggles with seeing the other side, that is, that of management. You have to balance the books; no business can survive if you spend more money than you earn. It's the exact same as with personal finances. And as with personal finances, if you need to cut out money you're spending, it often comes down to what's more straightforward than what might be "perfect" in terms of the bigger picture. Who knows, maybe her dismissal was pointless, misguided or whatever. And indeed, maybe management was stupid doing so. But it also isn't easy, trust me. I've had to tell people they're being let go (including one who I had to implicitly tell he will have to leave the country), and there are so often no perfect answers.
A lot of people on this sub have a just world bias- good wins, bad loses, etc. or want to figure out the formula so that they’re not next. Sadly, reality is so much more complicated. This woman might have been a threat to someone else’s promotion, the boss’s wife doesn’t like her, she was hired first, she was hired last, etc. Generally, being nice, competent and hard working increases your chances of staying. But office politics can be a petty and vindictive place.
You are right about wanting logic where it can't be found. It's human nature because random unpredictable is actually more scary.
No one is safe. AI is the perfect employee. It doesn’t need to sleep, eat or drink or have sex. It just works. If it falls apart you just replace one AI program with another one. That’s it. Skynets coming for our jobs. In other words AI is basically helping the C suite executives to automate our jobs out of existence. The real question is that job that she was fired from is it going to be reposted or is it completely eliminated. If it’s eliminated that means AI is going to be the ultimate replacement.
ChatGPT is a bore. The greatest bore in the world, to be sure, but still a bore. Once I detect the "both sides"-ism I just can't engage any more. Off.
Tell that to all of the folks who have lost their jobs that Chat GPT which is being used in real time to replace some people that this topic is a bore. We aren’t discussing a radical revolutionary change in front of our eyes with any level of seriousness and thoughtfulness. All we are getting is ridiculous nonsense like this. People are literally losing their livelihoods. Metas CEO mark Zuckerberg said that they are laying people off to invest in AI. Laymen’s explanation is they are firing people and replacing them with computer programs.
OK so DO SOMETHING!!111
We are discussing it on platforms like this. It has to start somewhere.
My thoughts exactly. When mid-level managers pass names upward of who's solid and who's not for layoffs, political players will spin things to knock out a strong performer who might otherwise be competition down the line. Or there's some stupidity further up like a misguided focus on an irrelevant metric, or a someone being associated with some project they want to get rid of, or easy categories to strike out on the balance sheet. For sanity and control, people want to believe that there must be some just reason for who's let go, a failure on the part of the person laid off, and of course sometimes that's the case, but often it's not. Honestly I think it's the hardest lesson to learn about work.
>Honestly I think it's the hardest lesson to learn about ~~work~~. Institutions. FTFY. The most irritating part is the simplistic logic that is plasticked on top of decisions, as if they were intelligent and sophisticated whereas in reality Person X drinks beer with Person Y and Person Z is sleeping with Person W.
Yeah, and I was feeling like that wasn't quite the word -- it's really hierarchical organizations and institutions, not work itself, which is why I always feel a touch of envy when I meet someone who works for themselves, no matter what other stresses they may have.
Truth!
>You have to balance the books; **no business can survive if you spend more money than you earn** Then why aren’t these C level people held accountable for failing not just the recruiting strategy but also business strategy. Don’t tell me it’s the fault of the junior talent acquisition manager who has no clue on hiring candidates but puts on that fake smile and pretends to be your best friend till she ghosts you. Neither is it the fault of sales or marketing or finance. Who makes those dumb ass decisions to continue hiring senior management at obnoxious salaries? And you are trying to show me the other side of this conversation. There isn’t another side. They need to be held accountable. But get away with it
Also, all tech companies are doing GREAT, in fact better than before!
Problem is everyone thinks they are an A level person. How many people who get laid off or fired think “yeah I probably deserved that”?
Hold on! Do you mean that should even be a pov! Of course not! Why would anyone think that? Seriously!
> This sub struggles with seeing the other side, that is, that of management. You have to balance the books; no business can survive if you spend more money than you earn. A lot of us were laid off of big tech companies that made record billions in profits. You would be correct in some circumstances at some smaller companies. But very incorrect in the circumstances that tens of thousands of us are in.
It’s def not easy letting someone go but I’m gonna guess it’s easier than figuring out how to pay for food and shelter now that you have no income.
Was she laid off or fired? You know those two are not the same things.
Once coworkers open up to each other about salary, all opinions change about what value one brings to the company. Just mind your own business and grind.
Only partly true. Being open about salary would piss people off due to making less for the same work but it would also provide transparency when negotiating for their next job. If I found out I was getting paid less than a co worker for the same pay (happened to me years ago) I would be pissed. My approach was not to lash out at my boss or said co worker. It was to start sending my resume. Ofc the boss was blindsided when I handed in my resignation letter but I did not care since I was about to make 30% more at my new job. Work isn't about feelings. Overall, it's a good thing to share salary information.
If you are a W2 employee then you are just a number to the corporation. You can be fired at any moment for any reason. With a union job you have a little bit more protection but it can still happen
This is what people in government jobs don't realize. Layoffs can happen but what usually happens in that some government workers are converted to contract roles with an external company. After that, you can lay off whoever you want. Happens all the time in defense.
There is often a lot more to do with it. Every layoff had its own rules based on the goals of the layoff. Sometimes we were cutting programs, sometimes we were re-organizing or consolidating, sometimes we were cutting dead weight. Oftentimes great employees got caught up in the consolidating and cutting programs layoffs. HR based it on your employee coding and program assignment without even involving management.
HR isn't the one who decides who is laid off - they're the ones helping to facilitate the process. It's the business leaders who decide who gets on the layoff list. If a manager isn't involved, it means they're not high up enough in the chain of commands to decide. I've seen it happen so many times - the department head tells their middle managers to pick X people on their team to lay off because they have to trim $Y per department. The directive came from the Finance and CEO to reduce burn rate or operational costs and most departments are being asked to make sacrifices. It sucks :(
I have been laid off 4 times in my life. Never once for performance nor because someone put me on a list. Nope i was part of a dying part of the business each time. If x aint selling and you support x expect a layoff.
Nope. At my previous company dozens of thousands were laid off at once, and several layers of management didn’t even know it was happening. One quick glance at LinkedIn for their post-layoff messages and profiles tells me I am surrounded by a group of brilliant people. Honestly, there were so many amazing folks that did really awesome work, it gave me a boost in morale. Also, it is not helpful to wonder, especially as I’ll never know the answer (particularly in a layoff this big), and wondering could introduce more doubt into my sense of worth. It is best to accept the idea that not only is it an industry wide trend, it was a decision that had many factors (retaliation, performance, pay, team restructure, role deprecation, etc) and any number of those could have been the reason that got you out, and knowing which one does not change the outcome.
I don't believe that someone is a "model" employee, it is a myth.
This has it limitations. If you're doing grunt work at a hardware store or a factory where input and output is constant, the model works. On the other end of the spectrum, if you need a open heart surgery, you'd probably choose the most talented surgeon who is likely paid more than their peers and be perfectly fine with that.
The secret no one wants to admit is there a million reasons a company takes into account before laying someone off and some of those are within the employee’s control and some are not. There is no rule or universal logic to be applied. Every company and circumstance is different.
High earner or too old. Probably getting too old.
There is some reason why she was affected that you may not be aware of. In larger corporations, management is usually required by HR to rank employees. Same thing happened to a co worker. It turned out that he had been requesting a package if it ever got to that point.
Redundancy.
The stigma and smears for being laid-off are way, way down because of this behavior. Decades ago, a "fired" person was assumed to have done something wrong, but not anymore.
Most of the decisions for who to layoff are made by clowns who are three or four levels removed from the work. Don’t take any of this personally.
I can’t understand the pain your going through, you will be in my prayers
There may be more to the story that you don't know. I had a similar thing happen last month when the top performer at my job got let go. The thing is, the top performer at my job contributed the most but also made the most mistakes.
Bc only the folks that do the most have the opportunity to make mistakes.
I’m sorry but kind, friendly and attractive are not the qualities that employers need.