4 ms·
I am aware of and agree with this definition. But... One company I worked for had two rounds of layoffs - the first round got rid of exclusively low performers
by xyzelement 4y ago
I am aware of and agree with this definition. But...
One company I worked for had two rounds of layoffs - the first round got rid of exclusively low performers (they didn't announce it that way but it was clear) while the second cut across the board. If someone had that insight, they'd be right to consider someone cut in the first wave as a red flag.
But more generally, I don't think people stick to this definition, especially when talking about themselves. "I was laid off from X"... No dude, you got fired for harassment.
Again, all of this is conjecture - we have no idea what the situation in question actually was nor how the person communicated with the company about it.
- guax 4y agoI have never met a company that was able to reliably gauge performance. And would not put that against anyone unless they were intentionally fired and we're evasive about it.
- xyzelement 4y ago// I have never met a company that was able to reliably gauge performance I have had the opposite experience. Every company I've worked for, the employee ranking matched my perception of that employee pretty well on average.
- astrange 4y agoHow did you know their ranking? Smells of circularity.
- xyzelement 4y agoTwo ways. Seeing who was laid off in performance rounds. Also as a manager, sat in plenty of calibration meetings where we lined up rankings across managers.
- astrange 4y ago…sure, but that's what circularity means. You think it's accurate because you set it. The problem is when people are doing something useful the managers haven't noticed. (Or is successfully bullshitting instead of contributing anything.)