Mass Layoffs (RAs) and PIPs (Excuses to Sack) at IBM: Insiders Tell No Relation to Actual Performance
Despite a lot of noise and rage-bait from Internet trolls (seems to be just one extremely noisy one, not plural), it is not too easy to lose track of the signal in thelayoff.com discussions regarding IBM. Minutes ago someone said what happened in Albany some months ago. To quote the full comment: "All the people impacted from Albany in December were higher mid-level employees, and every one of them was highly productive. None were on a PIP. Many were absolutely shocking to hear they were impacted. My guess is they were simply expensive. That’s the only explanation that makes sense to me for why they were let go. Every one of them was a top performer in their respective area and in many cases their absence ki-led the programs they were working on."
If it is not based on performance, then nobody is safe (which was the main message of the thread... before a troll derailed it).
Meanwhile, about 50 minutes ago someone started another thread about, this time about PIPs: "I am put on a PIP. The second line manager is according to the HR message the evaluator. First line manager is supposed to support. First line manager creates hard to achieves goals. The normal thing would be that the second line manager gets his own opinion. However 1st says he is in charge and I have not directly reached out to 2nd line. How others have experienced it."
Someone said "[how] others have experienced it" by advising the original poster to start looking for another job:
That’s unfortunate, and you likely didn’t deserve it. In practice, PIP processes are often used more as a headcount reduction or exit mechanism than as a true performance improvement tool. While it’s presented as a structured way to support underperformers, the reality in many organizations is different.Even if someone meets all stated goals, outcomes don’t always change once they’re placed in that process.
At this point, the most practical move is to stay focused on your options and start exploring other opportunities as broadly as possible.
This is how IBM can hide many of its layoffs. It calls them "PIPs" or puts people on warning; this way they leave.
IBM is a very vicious company; funny how nobody in the media speaks about IBM PIPs; have all the journalists lost their tongues/pens? If many thousands are impacted by this, then certainly it is newsworthy.
It seems like the corporate media only reaches out for ink when it gets paid by IBM to spread misinformation. █