5 ms·

Not quite sure what you mean by that, I'm not the one making decisions of who to cut. That's one to many levels above me. Your stated argument would make sense

Not quite sure what you mean by that, I'm not the one making decisions of who to cut. That's one to many levels above me. Your stated argument would make sense if you're dealing with reasonable people. Which is sometimes. But I'm talking specifically when shit hits the fan and people levels above me put down a mandate across many divisions. As it is if they're making cuts they'll grasp whatever metrics they can and cut. If they don't have metrics that gives less protection, not more. Take "as you can see I have X number of staff fully allocated and up to their eyeballs in work" vs "I don't have that metrics but trust me". That's part of my job or responsibility depending on my seniority to justify my team and keep them employed and not stressed by cuts and workload.

OJFord 23d ago
Sorry, I was referring to your first paragraph, about someone new coming along and caring about metrics retroactively not previously cared about. My point being that by proposing the solution 'so we should care about them, in case that happens' you effectively are (or are equivalent to) that person, you're making it happen sooner (and for sure).
- JauntyHatAngle 12d ago
  In my experience, when they are in a cutting mood, they often decide first how many people to cut, then go through teams based on their workload. So your team not having metrics, they are more likely to go "wow that team is pretty empty of work, cut half of them (exaggeration of course) rather than "well they don't have any metrics so Ill take them at their word or wait and see". Cynical maybe, but my best managers who've kept a team together and protected tended to be really effective at selling the work they're doing and how long it'll take and how much workload each team member has, and showing how busy the team is in a way thats impactful.
- suttontom 23d ago
  The alternative is that they lay off everyone because the entire team doesn't have metrics for the work they've done. The kind of person to single someone out who hasn't been tracking their work may not be likely to just up and forgive the entire team if they've all done it that way.

OJFord 23d ago

Sorry, I was referring to your first paragraph, about someone new coming along and caring about metrics retroactively not previously cared about. My point being that by proposing the solution 'so we should care about them, in case that happens' you effectively are (or are equivalent to) that person, you're making it happen sooner (and for sure).

JauntyHatAngle 12d ago
In my experience, when they are in a cutting mood, they often decide first how many people to cut, then go through teams based on their workload. So your team not having metrics, they are more likely to go "wow that team is pretty empty of work, cut half of them (exaggeration of course) rather than "well they don't have any metrics so Ill take them at their word or wait and see". Cynical maybe, but my best managers who've kept a team together and protected tended to be really effective at selling the work they're doing and how long it'll take and how much workload each team member has, and showing how busy the team is in a way thats impactful.
suttontom 23d ago
The alternative is that they lay off everyone because the entire team doesn't have metrics for the work they've done. The kind of person to single someone out who hasn't been tracking their work may not be likely to just up and forgive the entire team if they've all done it that way.