How IBM Removes 15% of Its Staff Without Even Checking Performance of Staff (or Calling That "Layoffs")
Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) as veiled RAs
Some minutes ago someone posted the following experience: (firsthand account)
Last year, I was instructed by my management chain to identify 15% of my organization as low performers and to formally record those ratings during the mid-year review process. I was asked whether any employees should be placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), but I was not directed to do so, and I did not recommend any because I did not have any genuine low performers. Quite the opposite—many of the people I was asked to classify as low performers were solid contributors who were meeting or exceeding expectations.At year-end, I was again instructed to apply a 15/70/15 performance distribution across my team. There was no requirement that employees in the lowest category be placed on PIPs, nor was there any expectation that documented performance deficiencies would support those ratings.
What happened next made the purpose of the exercise clear. I was instructed to identify approximately 15% of the organization for termination in the first quarter of the following year. Those terminations went ahead despite none of the affected employees having been placed on PIPs.
From where I sat, performance ratings were not being used to measure performance. They were being used to justify predetermined workforce reduction targets. The numbers came first; the ratings were made to fit.
That is the reality of IBM as I experienced it.
What a truly sinister company. Imagine Confluent, HashiCorp, Red Hat and many others having to put up with it. They've had mass layoffs this year; the media barely said anything. The fresh new messages below are also rather relevant (if accurate). IBM is culling people via PIPs (and forums discussing this get trashed by provocative Internet trolls). █
