Is it the VP that decides or is it your manager? Pulte? What metrics do they use? Commit amount? How often your name comes up in meetings? Does your age matter much? What about pay?
11 replies (most recent on top)
From what I've seen it depends. If a manager or director want you gone they need to provide some sufficient evidence or reason to do so. I've seen them keep someone for two months knowing full well they weren't working but needed more "data" to show that. If you get on a VP bad side or they don't like you they have a little more power, but most eventually seems to go thru HR...so they come up for a reason but still takes time. I've seen some warned and it took two or three months before they were let go and many times for just stupid reasons (like not agreeing with everything as then they think you are a problem).
They really just want most people to keep their head down and shut up and act like they are working even if they are inefficient. I've seen too many people that can't do their job survive their (even get promoted). They just look busy and know the right people. It isn't anything new but it was worse and worse year after year, but more difficult to see when everyone was working from home. Look at the AI push, people were rewarded for using AI a lot even when it didn't help or do anything to increase efficiency. It is more about optics than the actual job.
No it's not. In my division, the VPs have had no idea until after the fact. They find out from texts from their own reports.
The SVPs and the EVPs go into a secret conclave, where they engage in multiple "Weakest Link" style rounds of voting, until they get the necessary votes to remove those they don't want. Once the votes are in, white smoke is released, and that is the trigger to send out the 6 am texts.
@ac this is 100% accurate
I've talked to a few VP level officers who had folks who were let go who didn't know until after it happened. I think it really varies by division and the EVP's/SVP's style.
@a7 this the bs the directors sell to save face with who is left. Second line managers for sure significantly contribute to the name selections. Likely the conversation is , we need 3 names from each director. And they either had the name already in mind in prep, or they go the managers reporting to them and ask them to give a name. It possible to the vp already had a list gathered from directors proactively. Even if in certain departments vp being close makes the list , they for sure run if by the director(s). The stupid lie the directors sell to look like victims.. zero “leadership”, zero responsibility, just compliance and bootlicking to survive.
Nah. MF there was minimal VP input. Far removed from day to day.
Managers tend to find out after the fact and are left scrambling to reassign things.
@OP you are evaluated on many metrics. Some positively correlated and some negatively.
SVP gets recommendations from the VP, who has a pretty good idea of candidates through regular convos with their directs. Managers provide only indirect input.
Mainly at the svp level with no input from your manager.