Is it purely cost and tenure, is there a list that circulates around executives to get alignment, or does each leader just submit a list that hits a certain target number/price?

Hello everyone,

With the increasing number of layoffs, I've been curious about the behind-the-scenes decision-making process that companies use to determine who gets laid off. I understand this is a complex issue, involving a variety of factors, and I'm interested in gaining a broader understanding of this process.

Is there any framework in the companies to execute these decisions? Maybe, there is an executive on the tech side like a CTO, who could give input here.

How does one decide who and what team is not performing well enough? I am aware of the PIP framework, for example, but not every company uses that. I believe people who got laid off are maybe even outside of these frameworks.

I'm looking to understand both the theoretical framework and real-world applications of these decisions. Any insights, experiences, or resources you can share would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks!

I have been laid off twice in a row in the past and the first time I took it super personal, second time I was champ at it but I need to know - who really makes the call to lay off a specific person? Say it’s for a major studio if that has any significance.

What decision making goes into how they target people for layoffs? Specifically asking about tech and software development in general?

Do they look at your total comp/ level? Your business unit? If you need visa sponsorship?

What else goes into making these decisions inside companies?

Or is it all luck 🍀?

Thanks for any insights! 🙏

My company has announced today that 10% of employees will be laid off in the next few months. Do they basically target high paying people and the lowest performers the most? Or is it truly random sometimes?

I would say I'm probably about an average performer and my salary is about average compared to most salaries. I'm not really on either end of the spectrum for those two categories in my view.

With all of the layoffs happening now, how are these decisions made? Curious to hear from Hr leaders that have had to facilitate these hard decisions.

JP morgan chase has RIF(Reduction in force) team that sends prepares lost of employees to that need to be laid off every quarter. They do it slowly as they don’t want to invoke WARN act and pay 60 days salary instead of shorter 30 days. Do other companies have RIF teams.

(I don't have enough karma to post this in r/cscareerquestions so I thought to ask it here.)

Do they select low performing people? Then how come people who stayed with the company for 5, 6 years are fired? If a person is low performing they won't be able to survive that long in the company right? Or do they fire randomly from departments that have low revenue? Also, if a person is stuck on a big problem that is very hard to solve, working day and night, but haven't been able to progress, does management still regard it as low performance?

A layoff doesn't feel good and it can lead to a bout of situational depression — alongside scrambling to stay financially afloat. For some workers, it may come as a complete surprise and leave them wondering how they ended up on the layoff list and why their company decided to make those cuts.

For the most part, the vast majority of layoffs are completely agnostic to the individual and are made without any individual person in mind and are just about how to ensure that the company can survive. There might be more granularity in who, exactly, should stay and go at a smaller company, but that's usually an outlier.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/how-companies-decide-who-to-lay-off/ar-AA1jpGqU?cvid=ac8c4327bcde4cce99a43f7273dbbb6b&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=10

For example, I saw Tesla says that they're going to layoff 10 percent of people. Do they simply just get rid of people who they feel do they least amount of good work?

It seems high performers and even consultants with high utilization have gotten laid off recently, so how does Deloitte who to fire based on "market conditions"? Not sure if anyone has any insights they can share.

Many of us have witnessed or been involved with layoffs before, but I'm curious how it works for those in management positions.

For this scenario lets assume you'd need to lose part of the team, rather than the whole team being disbanded/laid off.

• Is there an order from above to reduce your headcount by X%?

• Or might it be based on salary, like reduce total team salary by X%?

• Is there any negotiation on this, to try to shift the loses to other teams/depts?

What about the selection of who to let go from your team...

• Is that up to you or decided for you?

• Do you have to delegate it down to the next manager below you (if there is one)?

• What criteria usually effects this? Publicly I'm sure it's all presented as an unbiased decision, but surely there is inherent biases involved here. Like if theres a particularly difficult team member are they top of the list?

Those of you with experience in layoff decision making, can you share what goes behind decisions? Are they typically random/lottery type? Or is there an “order of operation” to it?

Anything we can learn to help upskill or stay in good graces with the right people to minimize risk of being part of a layoff?

Can anyone in leadership shed some insight on this? Let’s say an org gets a notice to lay off ~10 people. Do the directors and above in that org get together and decide collectively together on who goes? Or does the vp tells his direct reports that they need to pick ~2 people to go from each of their teams? Also, what criteria do they use to make this decision?

I’ve had team members get laid off and my manager said he got orders from SVP to let these specific people go. I can’t, for the life of me, figure out why these people were let go when they were top performers (more so than I am).

I’m genuinely curious. My company recent laid off a shit ton of people from departments we consider critical. We’re already understaffed as is and it didn’t make sense that some people in these areas were booted. I also would’ve thought that the newer hires were easier targets but another new colleague and myself made it through this. Nothing is making sense and I’m wondering if anyone has insight.

Thanks.

Just curious what kinds of things (aside from tenure and performance) were considered in deciding who to layoff. Especially anything that the rank in file employees would be shocked at.

I just went through a layoff recently, and I'm kind of surprised on both who was let go, and who made the cut to stay.

I have heard so much news recently about various companies laying off significant portions of their employees; obviously big tech stand out but also consultancies.

In consulting specifically, how is the decision made to lay people off? What factors are taken into account when deciding if an employee is going to stay or be let go?

Is it 100% based on how many hours that person has billed to clients year to date? Is it based on a more complex balance of how much an employees salary is vs how much money they bring in for the company? Is it based on specific teams being too large? Is it solely based on if you’re on the bench right at this moment, you gotta go? What if you are currently on a project that is on the books for the next several months, are you for sure safe or are you still at risk?

Any insight would be appreciated! Thank you!

Being laid off causes bit of confusion and self blaming and a mixed bag of emotions . Especially since the reason for you being chosen is usually never provided. I’ve been laid off 1 once but have been either decision person or done pre- layoff analysis for orgs (about 6). That being said the decision making process is pretty clear cut and usually it’s made by people that don’t know about your day to day activities. It’s “strategy”driven and lowest level of emotional bias (or at least it should be). It boils down to numbers. Because at the end of the day when you get to a certain role- your jobs is about making sure the business makes the most money, with lowest costs.

Here are common questions that are discussed in the war rooms pre- layoffs:

1. Who are the top earners? Does someone else have overlapping skills? Short Coming: You’re too expensive and some one else can do your job.

2. Can someone who costs less cover knowledge gaps? Short Coming: You’re too expensive relative your skills and someone else who does just enough can do your job.

3. What are the businesses future goals in the next year or so- does this person have unique skills that could benefit the business? Short Coming: Not having consistent Skill development

4. Is there documentation into process to cover a specific person ? Short coming: Over documenting process and making yourself replaceable by someone cheaper or a fast learner.

5. Is there someone we absolutely cannot by law layoff right now- who will take their spot or compares that we can layoff? Short coming: Coincidence that who you’re compared to protected individual (e,g. a pregnant person, or someone on FMLA) .

6. Who will likely resist Role changes or delegation of fill gaps? Shortcoming: Having Role boundaries

7. What’s performance looking for the lowest earners vs compatible more expensive contributor- what’s the reason for keeping them? Shortcomings: Having a higher salary

8. Some follow: Last in, first out for roles so longest tenure in a role holds weight. Shortcoming: Less tribal knowledge, you just haven’t earned your stripes

9. While others follow the opposite: First In, first out- usually because when people get comfortable in a role they tend to not action areas of improvement for process. Meaning they are more complacent with process. And when businesses are wanting to be more efficient they may want the opposite. Shortcoming: No diversity in prospective to support fast changing phase.

I know it’s so easy to make a layoff personal but the factors considered are usually very impersonal unless you have an executive sponsor that will always go up to bat for you. In which case you are kept no matter the factors (and this usually means they advocate about your potential to assimilate to change).

Basically to lower your chances of getting laid off (not a parody)

1. Don’t ask for too much money, keep your salary in bottom earners.

2. Keep up with your skills, not for the company’s sake but for yours.

3. Don’t over speak to things or over document to what you own or work on.

4. Don’t have role boundaries, be super enthused to take on any work even if it’s not in your role.

5. Again, don’t be too expensive.

6. Always show interest in understanding historically how the company has changed and process.

7. But not so much so that you don’t voice areas of improvement.

8. Always bring up ways to improve and make processes efficient in documentation comm methods .

9. Always positively speak on the company, mission, and be enthused about changes no matter how fatigued and toxic the work place has become.

10. Find yourself an executive sponsor that has a seat at the big boy table.

Seems simple enough?

Edit : A lot of good questions are coming up- and want to clarify, I haven’t worked as a consultant. I’ve worked as an employee delegated to analyze process to cut down processing time. When doing do so, I sat in rooms and gave insight into feasibility of the work happening with certain skillset. So I have heard these type of decision conversations since 2017, in 12 orgs in different industries (fintech, FAANG, Insurance,SaaS). I definitely don’t know about all layoff practices or pretend to but fundamentally in all convos I’ve been a part of the main factor is money, and now more than not (with AI) cuts have become more aggressive.

Edit #2:

This post may upset some, but the truth will set you free but first it’ll piss you off. By posting this I’m not saying I agree with it- I’m saying “these were common things and talked about” for those who think it’s a super granular, methodological decision or a deep dive into each person. Its not- is a cost cut.