Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon tells bosses to conceal when employees are on performance management plan

seattletimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 300 posts

Re: Amazon tells bosses to conceal when employees are on performance management plan

#131

Post by pseudalopex »

ozzythecat wrote: post #25

> “Should I tell an employee that I entered them into Focus?” the question reads. The response: “Do not discuss Focus with employees. Instead, tell the employee that their performance is not meeting expectations, the specific areas where they need to improve, and offer feedback and support to help them improve.” The headline is editorialized. IMO whether you’re told you’re in Focus or not is irrelevant. If your manag…

The process is relevant to the company. So it's relevant to the employee.

The headline is correct unless Amazon policy is not telling employees about performance problems before Focus. Otherwise the discussion about Focus sounds just like the discussion they should have before Focus.

> There’s a more fundamental question - are we saying once you get hired, your job should be permanent, regardless of your performance?

I haven't seen even 1 comment even imply anything even close. I've seen many comments say employees should know where they stand.

You said you work at Amazon in another comment.[1] It would have been appropriate to say here.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27786929

Re: Amazon tells bosses to conceal when employees are on performance management plan

#133

Post by motohagiography »

There is some rationale for this, as why tip an at-risk employee off to what is essentially a foregone conclusion?

Napkin math, if your salary is $100k/year - you are necessarily delivering at least $200k in revenue/value, so if you have a rough 6-month stretch, as an asset you are under water. At that point you are a liability and unless someone else can deliver on the other part of that expected $200k value, the opportunity cost is harming the company.

The point of a PIP is to create a paper trail to protect the company from incurring further costs and liability risk, so as a purely post-decision defensive strategy, it makes sense to not disclose it. The laws make it such that everyone has to sustain the fiction that a PIP is in earnest, which creates that creepy gaslighting feeling. The supreme irony is keeping it secret could mean a more personally honest and less psychologically harmful relationship for all involved.

Reality is, performance in most organizations is secondary to relationships in them (and perhaps credentials) because the reason a (profitable/long-lived) company makes money as a business is because it can operate at scale with interchangeable parts that get along, which means the marginal value of a high or low performer is not as significant to its bottom line as downside risks from a lack of cohesion, so the main thing you need to care about in an organization is your key relationships.

If your relationship with co-workers or managers is getting dicey, all you can do is "read the room," keep your CV updated, and your recruiter contacts warm, because unless you deliver some large multiple on performance (product breakthrough they need you to execute, or land a large client, etc), opinion-wise you're done there and it's time to move on.

Re: Amazon tells bosses to conceal when employees are on performance management plan

#134

Post by meh99 »

ToxicMegacolon wrote: post #114
UnpossibleJim wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think that this culture will shift with his retirement, or do you think that this culture is so embedded within the fabric of Amazon itself, that there is no separating this kind of behavior from the company without a dismantling of the corporate structure itself?

Unless they dump the entire senior management and bring new folks in, its not changing. That culture is at the core of Amazon, and perhaps even a contributor to its success, at the detriment of its own employees of course.

I think we define success too narrowly for these sprawling organizations with massive social influence.

How much political scrip such an organization generates given esoteric economic measures should not outweigh real world impact

Re: Amazon tells bosses to conceal when employees are on performance management plan

#135

Post by tablespoon »

traskjd wrote: post #125
mataug wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Andy Jassy used to lead AWS before becoming Amazon's CEO. AWS has a reputation of being a difficult place to work, even more so than Amazon's other divisions. So no, I don't think anything will change. https://www.newstatesman.com/business/companies/2021/02/he-l...

Yes, those poor AWS employees sure have it tough vs that warehouse division.

> Yes, those poor AWS employees sure have it tough vs that warehouse division.

Pointing out that someone has it shittier is typically an excuse for shittyness.

Re: Amazon tells bosses to conceal when employees are on performance management plan

#136

Post by giantrobot »

oofabz wrote: post #24
nasalgoat wrote: post #3

Most successful companies I know are constantly recruiting and trying to keep people onboard - why would they be trying to actively get rid of people?

>why would they be trying to actively get rid of people? It's extremely demoralizing to work with people who are bad at their job. It makes me feel as though my hard work is unappreciated, because someone who is not working hard gets the same treatment. Sometimes the employee is slacking off, sometimes they are bad at their job. Either way, if their failure to contribute is bringing the rest of the team down, they ha…

> It's extremely demoralizing to work with people who are bad at their job.

You're assuming various PIPs are being used in good faith by the employer. In a lot of big companies there's a nebulous and hand-wave-y criteria for putting someone on a PIP and then there's no clear path for the employee off the PIP. Too often PIPs are like "mean girl" shit lists. You can get on one without knowing it and have little to no agency in getting off one.

For companies that do stack ranking, you can end up on a PIP just for happening to be at the bottom of the stack for no real fault of your own. The employer is then happy to dick you with compensation for as long as they can justify keeping you on a PIP.

It's more demoralizing to end up black balled and screwed over on compensation than just being told outright you're on a PIP and there's some particular goals to hit to get off. Not everyone can just jump ship after they get stiffed on compensation after a review. The goal is to demoralize people so they quit so they don't have to fire them and potentially end up with some wrongful termination lawsuit.

Re: Amazon tells bosses to conceal when employees are on performance management plan

#137

Post by ijamj »

almost_usual wrote: post #113
decafninja wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep hearing all the letters of FAANG have more or less similarly competitive total compensation if you factor in RSUs, appreciation, etc. But then I hear things about "cliffs" and how extremely high TCs are possible only because of stock appreciation. In that sense, is Netflix basically untouchable in terms of compensation, if F/A/A/G (and other companies like Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, Microsoft, etc.) can only be compe…

I wouldn’t want to work at a place like Netflix that doesn’t comp with equity, especially after a year like 2020. A 500k TC could easily be 800k+ now, if that’s cash it’s still 500k and worth less due to inflation. If the stock significantly depreciates there will be layoffs anyway.

Beauty of cash is that you can do whatever you want with it. For example, buy Netflix shares. Or buy Alphabet shares. Maybe Apple. That way you can both benefit from upside and somewhat protect from downside of your own employer's shares tanking all the while you're getting laid off (as you're suggesting).

Re: Amazon tells bosses to conceal when employees are on performance management plan

#138

Post by andreilys »

almost_usual wrote: post #113
decafninja wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep hearing all the letters of FAANG have more or less similarly competitive total compensation if you factor in RSUs, appreciation, etc. But then I hear things about "cliffs" and how extremely high TCs are possible only because of stock appreciation. In that sense, is Netflix basically untouchable in terms of compensation, if F/A/A/G (and other companies like Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, Microsoft, etc.) can only be compe…

I wouldn’t want to work at a place like Netflix that doesn’t comp with equity, especially after a year like 2020. A 500k TC could easily be 800k+ now, if that’s cash it’s still 500k and worth less due to inflation. If the stock significantly depreciates there will be layoffs anyway.

The funny thing about cash is that you can use it to buy equity. Who knows, maybe you’ll even learn to diversify by investing in areas uncorrelated to your line of work

Re: Amazon tells bosses to conceal when employees are on performance management plan

#139

Post by underwater »

temp8964 wrote: post #22
qqtt wrote: post #13

I never understood the secretive nature of these Amazon "devplan" / "FOCUS" lists. If an employee has a performance issue, they should know. Period. If they are on a formal list, they should know that too. The only "positive" here is that it can affect the individual's moral to know you are not meeting expectations - but that has to be communicated regardless. If it's understood it has to be communicated and there is…

Not really. The management team can make mistakes too. In those cases, it is not clear whether it is better for the employee to know. There is no clear cut obvious answer to this, unless you assume everyone is an emotionless robot.

It's not like management will just let the employer keep underperforming. They'll secretly PIP them, let them continue on their course, and then fire them with no warning.

Re: Amazon tells bosses to conceal when employees are on performance management plan

#140

Post by temp8964 »

lazide wrote: post #108
temp8964 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you should always know. I also updated the language.

Doing something about a problem generally requires someone is aware that a problem exists right? Otherwise it’s just marking them for future termination without telling them, which seems like a waste of everyone’s time.

No. The management team can make honest mistake. After preliminary investigation, they find they are wrong. No need to tell the employee in this regard.

I did not say they should never tell the employee. I think sometimes it's unnecessary.

Post reply on HN