The way leadership picks who gets cut here is totally random and makes zero sense. They've let go of some really talented people plus newer folks, and none of it seems to follow any pattern.
5 replies (most recent on top)
I was a senior level employee in Product: recently promoted, been there 5+ years, and earned Exceeds Expectations twice in the last 3 years. I was recognized by leaders across the organization for work I did independently. I also work from a US city that pays the lowest salary tier.
I was laid off. My manager kept saying "this is not based on performance," and I kept saying "I need to know what it is based on then." No answer. I made less at the senior-level than Junior level in larger cities, so it wasn't pay. It wasn't performance related either.
So to sum up what's been revealed so far, high salary and newly employed are two high risk factors. High salary helps cost reduction, and newly employed means one is not a single point of failure...
I was in the same boat as the other Lead Software poster here.
Lead Software Engineer at the end of a 7 month project for a major customer which I was told was absolutely critical. Things were on track… I was the only engineer on it and they didn’t even ask me for the code.
I was at Factset for less than a year.
To me the pattern is sort of clear: salary. axe the high-salary Lead SE Engineers.
I got a good offer and I’d bet my life that was a huge factor in getting LO.
The principal engineers typically have been at factset for a decade on the low end, might have reports, or are the only engineer on a critical part of the software.
Lead SE, LO, working on a rather high priority project. It seems to me they cut the experienced engineers who are doing the actual heavy-lifting work, while keeping some highly paid managers who do nothing but meetings all day long. Makes no sense to me, and it's frustrating.
Cost cutting. Talent means nothing if they can offshore and give them A.I to churn it out.
(Was laid off recently, lead software engineer)