So Dell wants to do a layoff of sales staff, and is going to lose their best performers first.
Dell's inside sales team probably has a much flatter bell curve, performance wise, then their outside (traveling) reps.
So yes, they are looking to do a layoff without the headlines, or severance, but probably aren't as concerned where on the bell curve those employees rank.
Middle and lower management of those teams is absolutely sweating bullets about their teams getting wrecked, but big picture, whatever impact the C Suite is expecting, clearly isn't enough to outweigh whatever net outcome they're hoping for here.
Edit: also, I pretty much guarantee that any of their far
high-end outliers on the inside sales team bell curve, will be given an exemption by whoever is 2 or 3 levels above their direct manager.
i hate how this "best performers" rhetoric always comes out in WFH discussion. everyone should be able to work from home if it's better for them regardless of if they're The Best at their dunder-mifflin ass job
Sure, everyone that has a job that can be done from home should be permitted to do it from home if they want to.
What the best performers rhetoric is about is that these companies are harming their long term prospects by doing things like this, since the personnel that make the most money for the company are generally the ones that can easily leave for another company that will not treat them like a child that needs to be directly monitored.
That's not the argument. The argument is rather that good employees can easily find new and better jobs. So the remaining people are on average worse.
It's also called Dead Sea Effect. The good ones evaporate, only salt remains.
They are saying the return to office mandate will cause the best performers (who are likely more confident in securing another job) to quit first, not that everyone shouldn't be WFH.
So Dell wants to do a layoff of sales staff, and is going to lose their best performers first.
Dell's inside sales team probably has a much flatter bell curve, performance wise, then their outside (traveling) reps.
So yes, they are looking to do a layoff without the headlines, or severance, but probably aren't as concerned where on the bell curve those employees rank.
Middle and lower management of those teams is absolutely sweating bullets about their teams getting wrecked, but big picture, whatever impact the C Suite is expecting, clearly isn't enough to outweigh whatever net outcome they're hoping for here.
Edit: also, I pretty much guarantee that any of their far high-end outliers on the inside sales team bell curve, will be given an exemption by whoever is 2 or 3 levels above their direct manager.
They already laid off a bunch.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dell-cuts-workers-sales-team-170000115.html
I guess not enough.
i hate how this "best performers" rhetoric always comes out in WFH discussion. everyone should be able to work from home if it's better for them regardless of if they're The Best at their dunder-mifflin ass job
Sure, everyone that has a job that can be done from home should be permitted to do it from home if they want to.
What the best performers rhetoric is about is that these companies are harming their long term prospects by doing things like this, since the personnel that make the most money for the company are generally the ones that can easily leave for another company that will not treat them like a child that needs to be directly monitored.
That's not the argument. The argument is rather that good employees can easily find new and better jobs. So the remaining people are on average worse.
It's also called Dead Sea Effect. The good ones evaporate, only salt remains.
They are saying the return to office mandate will cause the best performers (who are likely more confident in securing another job) to quit first, not that everyone shouldn't be WFH.