Recently, I was chatting with a friend, and someone mentioned why it is rare to hear that layoffs will lay off managementIt's rare to hear about it, it's just that you don't know it!
Because the number of management is relatively small, the movement is not so large.
There are many kinds of layoffs, and you see different people laid off in different ways.
For example, a 20% layoff.
If it is a large department, such as a R&D department with about 100 people, it may belong to the manager level of the management, the leader may be about 10%, and then a department director is a big boss.
So will this 20% make this director redundant?Obviously, it is impossible, it is only 20% cut, and the director will have to rearrange one after the cut, and then the cost of replacing the old and the new will be even greater in the end.
So will these dozen or so managers be laid off?According to the proportion of 20%, that is, 2, in the same way, if it is not for the integration of departments, a radish and a pit, basically as long as the team is still there, it is unlikely to lay off the leader. So there is a high probability that 1 or none will be cut.
So 100*20% of the last department, about twenty people, is basically the indirect personnel of the engineers and "non-combatants" below.
If it is a department-wide cut.
If a department is laid off, then the leader is likely to be laid off, basically the management position is a turnip and a pit, and it is impossible to keep the leader and then arrange it to other teams.
If this is really done, it can only mean that the leader of that team needs to be laid off, but he is unwilling to pay this money, and deliberately arranges 2 leaders, two tigers fight, and one of them must resign.
There is also a reason, the size of the layoffs.
Or the 20% layoffs in the R&D department above. If 20 engineers are laid off, this movement is very big, and everyone complains, one to ten, ten to hundred.
Then everywhere it became known that the department was laid off, and it was all employees who were laid off, and there were many complaints.
And if there is a manager in these 20 people. First of all, it is unlikely that this manager will complain everywhere, and secondly, his salary is relatively high, and the compensation is relatively high, so it is difficult to resonate with others.
Therefore, in many cases, it is not because the manager is not laid off, but because the movement of the manager being laid off is relatively small, and it will not be boiling, and the number of people is relatively small, and the person base may be quiet.
Of course, there is also a gray reason, many companies, to a certain level, such as the director and above, the "butt" is not clean. There may not be layoffs, and once there is a real need for this, it may just be the big boss or the company's legal lawyer who talks to them, and it is estimated that they will leave by themselves, and this is even more unlikely to make trouble The whole world knows.
You don't know, maybe on the one hand your level is relatively low, and you see things very one-sided;Another possibility is the hatred of the rich, because they have a relatively small number of people and have a lot of losses, and you have no way to empathize.
The last gossip I just heard a friend chat, a foreign company in Shanghai, the leader of autonomous driving, 5% of the layoffs, specifically for the middle and senior executives with an annual salary of more than 80w, is indeed a layoff of at least 2-3 people. 