Related Posts
Im not searching for a new job but an acquaintance reached out about a similar role at a similar energy company.Turns out 2 ppl threw my name in the hat. I looked into it and the position was posted 2 weeks ago.Their director wants to meet.I bet pay is one of the first things to be discussed so that no one’s time is wasted.Am I crazy for not wanting to entertain it for less than 20-25% base pay increase?Is it selfish to ask for more? I’m sure most salary conversations end in negotiation anyways?
an Elementary School Literature Teacher
How much can I expect in hand salary?
More Posts
Every time I go out in public.
“i just fell asleep in the elevator”
I just met the saddest German ever… Hans down
Pro
Bowl Leader
Additional Posts in Advertising
Rising Star
Best (non-agency) company to work at in Boston??
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
It's a months long process. Usually you're given a target date of like "beginning of Q3 we need XX people gone."
So they start telling you to put your low-performers on PIPs or discuss ways to manage them out (make them quit). Sometimes you have to commit to ranking your people and provide rationale for keeping or losing each one. You have to go through your roll up of people vs projected hours and report on what your plan is to cover the existing work with the people you'll have left.
Then, radio silence for a few weeks. During that time your best performers will get wind of what's coming, and they'll leave, as will most of the young people.
Then, your agency president or managing director will save their friends and leave you with all the garbage. As a bonus, they'll take the day off (usually a Tuesday or Thursday) leaving you to be the face of the layoff.
Pretty much sums it up. Your best folks get wind, leave and now you end up keeping a few you’d have otherwise have got rid of just to have “capacity”
This does not always apply to low performers, please be careful with that narrative.
You can be a very high performer but not necessarily be revenue generating and get caught in the matrix for that alone. Holding companies do not care about an individual's performance unless it is tied to dollars.
Time frames depend on the reasons for layoffs and how quick your company is to act.
At good companies, they’ll use them as opportunities to get rid of underperformers that have been the subject of firing for months.
I know nothing about the money side, but it’s probably tied to quarters.
Example- boss knows you’ll be laid off and but does it at the next fiscal quarter (since your salary is currently accounted for). You’ll notice this if you don’t get put on projects.
Pro
It usually starts with a mandate from the holding company or the network CFO. Your agency hasn't made its numbers, meaning that the revenue is lower than expected in relation to the costs, and so the profit margin is low. Investors look to margin in a low growth industry. Then the CFO / CEO give office and department leads a number to hit. Typically we need you to reduce your salary costs by x%.
So heads of department work through their lists. The first question is who could we let go without damaging client business? The calculation usually starts higher up the salary ladder, so you can hit your number with fewer departures. People allocated to accounts that have cut spend or left the agency are also high on the list. Heads of department will also close open roles and factor in people who have handed in their notice. It's not uncommon for 5-10% of salary costs to be tied to open roles or departing employees. They will also consider the chronic under-performers. Most agencies let under-performance drag on, and a round of layoffs is a forcing function.
The goal for most heads of department is to meet the number while maintaining the maximum capability and the minimum human damage. It's a cold and horrible process, and if you don't feel a little nauseous when you manage it, there is something missing in your soul. But it's almost never a malicious or careless process.
I’ve been told repeatedly it wasn’t related to performance at all, but they seem to have targeted my level (director) along with other directors. I was also one of the newest hires at that level, so tenure (and favoritism) probably was a key factor too.
Wow. Uggh. Processing this. Thank you.