Stack Ranking Against IBM/Red Hat Staff and a Signal of Mass Layoffs (RAs) Justified by Red Hat and IBM as Poor Performance/Misconduct/Other
Previously, regarding Stack Ranking: The Latest Microsoft Layoffs Are a Wake-up Call: The Company is Running Low on Money | Stack(ed) Rankings and Ongoing Layoffs at Red Hat and IBM (Failure to Keep Staff Acquired by IBM) | IBM and Microsoft Hiding Layoffs in Similar, Overlapping Ways
Old: IBM's Bad Leadership is a Threat to GNU/Linux
This morning: Claim That IBM Marked 15% of its Workforce for Potential Layoffs
This morning as well:
Just to state something very obvious and factual (as they say that what "goes without saying" sometimes goes unsaid), in 2026 there's a lot of RTO and lots of Red Hat staff is no longer Red Hat staff. True story!
A lot of Red Hat people have become "IBM". Some publicly announced it, some did not. Some changed their profile in social control media (accordingly), but many don't have social control media (good choice!) or don't update it anymore.
From what we understand, Red Hat staff dreads and dislikes IBM. They'll never say this publicly, certainly not in social control media. They're no longer happy where they work, but in 2026 it would be too difficult for them to pursue alternative employment in the same sector.
At the top I show some random new examples (from Microsoft's social control media) of IBM layoffs/RAs. Just because they say "last day" and act all happy doesn't mean they like it; there are NDAs and tacit threats, so if they want to get paid (severance) there are likely unlawful rules they must follow. Suing IBM over those unlawful rules would likely cost them vastly more than what they're legally entitled to in severance pay; there's also no guarantee they'll win the case or score a favourable settlement.
The discussion about IBM's management style is heating up today. This was posted 8 hours ago:
Manager here. Sorry to share that Stack ranking with a Forced distribution curves are ways to (1) Limit how much IBM pays people by ranking them lower, (2) Helping IBM establish a paper trail to layoff people.Here's how it basically works:
Top Contributor (5-15% of employees) = Big wigs know your name, outside of your project/team, in a good way. To get this rating, your Manager's Manager needs to be able to defend this rating and sing your praises and site specific examples of how you helped move the business forward. And other execs at that level need to agree.
Above Average (15% of employees) = Big wigs know your name on your project/your team, in a good way.
Average (~70-75% of employees) = You did your job and may have put in alot of effort but no one knew or could recall any of your contributions specifically.
Bottom Contributor (5-15% of employees) = You did not achieve your goals and/or you are unfortunately in the wrong place at the wrong time and your unit is getting ready for layoffs. So they need to start a paper trail to justify laying you off within the next 12 months or less.
Someone soon responded: "Your comment is taken verbatim from the HR handbook provided to low line managers (bottom feeders) to parrot the masters orders. Reality is different. Many top performers were let go recently. The reason, they are expensive and the work can be done cheaper in India."
Another person said: "Most companies don’t need a paper trail for layoffs and don’t base it on performance. Most fire people on PIPs. Are the “low performers” not getting fired?"
A reply to that then said, "good point. In the US, getting a low rating in the Performance Review some times requires a Manager to put the employee on a PIP. The PIP is then very tough to successfully complete and when the employee does not meet the PIP, they are put on the layoff list."
"Managers know this is a terrible situation for their team members and everyone is under alot of pressure. While this form of Performance Management is reprehensible, from a Legal standpoint is is sound because IBM can point to 2 written pieces of the communication with the employee that they were not meeting expectations which is justification for a layoff."
Another longer reply said that this is how IBM eliminates staff (de facto layoffs) under the guise of "low performance":
They have we-ponized this system to eliminate people they view as undesirable or disruptive. Actual performance is largely irrelevant. The system has been deliberately repurposed as a tool to quietly cull the herd, hidden behind a benign, bureaucratic name that gives leadership cover and plausible deniability.That’s why you see people let go whose departures make no sense at all—often some of the highest contributors on their teams. Not coincidentally, these individuals also tend to be the most vocal: the ones who ask uncomfortable questions, point out inconsistencies, and challenge decisions that don’t add up.
IBM leadership doesn’t want thinkers. They want compliance. They want sheep. They want people who won’t question contradictions in words versus actions—people they can control, leverage, and exploit for their own advancement.
So the next time you’re required to take those annual business conduct and ethics trainings, remember this: they’ve already figured out a workaround. The system itself has been bent to serve ends it was never meant for.
What’s most troubling is how little outrage this generates. People should be upset and angry about this. And HR is not ignorant of it. They’re fully aware—and in many cases, they enable it and even encourage such nefarious manipulation of their own system.
3 minutes ago somebody said, "exactly they we-ponized it to give them justification and legal protection."
Working in an atmosphere like this sounds like a nightmare. No wonder many people at Red Hat aren't happy where they are right now.
If they have options/alternatives/contingencies, then maybe now is a good time to explore these. There's a big layoffs wave coming very soon to IBM. █