to think that being made redundant means you are no good at your job

[user1498911470]

If somebody is made redundant, would you automatically think it's because they are no good at their job? I mean if only 3 people are being made redundant then presumably they are the 3 people that the management consider to be the weakest members of the team?

Some companies makes hundreds of people redundant. This is not related to people not doing their job.

I've been made redundant twice.

Both times my role was moved to head office. Hundreds of miles from where I lived.
First job, my boss was absolutely fucking furious, he had been assured I was safe and did everything he could to find me a new role. (I was happy to leave however)

Second job, HR and my boss begged me to move to where the job was, again I was happy to leave.

So no, I wasn't made redundant because I was shit at my job.

No - not at all. It might mean the company are changing those roles, perhaps they are no longer needed due to automation or outsourcing. Without knowing the exact job and circumstsances it's hard to comment but it's not usually a reflection on the person being made redundant.

Not necessarily. It could last in first out, those who are paid more, less experienced or who choose to go. It could be part of a restructuring that leaves no role for them. Or even that a customer has insisted on the retention of certain other people.

There are a lot of rules regarding redundancy, so companies have to be very careful to have valid reasons that would stand up in court.

I strongly agree with the PP who said that it won’t necessarily count against you when interviewing for a new role, as long as you make it a positive statement.

I got made redundant a few years ago. I got the boot because of the 3mof us doing the role I was most senior therefore most expensive but hadn’t been there as long as the others so a lower payout for the company.

It felt shit. And knocked my confidence but at interviews I took care to frame it as a positive and said stuff like it gave me the opportunity to take stock and change direction in my career. EVen though that was total bullshit and I was gutted to lose a job I loved.

But the positives actually became self fulfilling, and I landed an ace job (eventually) with way better prospects than my old role. I’m Now back up to a similar level of seniority but much better qualified and on more money and a shorter commute.

There is hope OP.

No, I would assume it was because their employer was in financial trouble (or wanted to avoid it) OR because their employer had pulled out of a particular market (which is what happened to me).

I think it varies. Some companies (wrongly) use redundancy as a management tool and when they need to cut jobs they get rid of those they deem the least competent. Or their faces just don't fit. Or they have more sick leave than others.

Other times it is genuinely about the actual job the person is doing and the fact it does not need to be done anymore.

You also get scenarios when they effectively reverse backfill the redundancy - someone has to be made redundant but they want to keep that person so they get rid of a different person. Again not good practice but how do you prove it has happened.

If you're all doing the same job and you are in a "pool", then yes it is likely the less effective one will will be made redundant. If you are being scored on, eg, skills and attendance, then it makes sense to let the weakest one go.