111–120 of 509 posts
It’s interesting because slashing hiring plans at a big company is almost akin to a full fledged layoff at a later stage private company. Simply because of attrition levels at these large companies, just stop hiring and stay put for a while and you’ve trimmed size. Way different for a startup where people are sticking around for a payday.
Interesting quote from CEO in an all hands directly to employees. I don't want to be at Meta right now.. .."turning up the heat" on performance management to weed out staffers unable to meet more aggressive goals. "Realistically, there are probably a bunch of people at the company who shouldn't be here," Zuckerberg said. "Part of my hope by raising expectations and having more aggressive goals, and just kind of turni…
Does this read “Let’s ditch those ethical people who get in the way of profit.”? Yes FB is not for me. Not as a worker, not as a customer.
No. You said that. Not sure what you are reading.
It is basically getting rid of very low performers, slackers and those unable to deliver those expected goals.
No where did it say what you have just said.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> glorified CRUD message board That's like describing SpaceX as "glorified fireworks"
Did you just compare CRUD to literal rocket science?
The same with CRUD. CRUD is simple, but to do CRUD on ~Facebook~ Meta scale, that's a different thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read that it is once in a year now.
Yes, they changed it effective this year. No more summer PSC, just the January one. If anything, that makes this internal announcement worse because of the whiplash. "We're going to make PSC less onerous and stressful by only doing it once a year!" "Just kidding, we're actually going full Hunger Games with the new once-a-year cycle!"
There's something interesting going on here. I agree that people will probably perceive annual PSC as less stressful than semiannual PSC. But even there, some people might not.
And there is a point where more frequent is very clearly less stressful. If you did PSC once a week, it wouldn't be cause for stress, it would just be something you did every week.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which makes me think - what are FB recruiters doing right now if the company isn't hiring and has no plans to start? Are many of them laid off too? If not, are they just... chilling?
Having seen a similar situation over 5 years ago play out, some of them (including many of their best recruiters) will go elsewhere because they have no work to do. Some others, of course, will become redundant. Although Meta has the advantage of name recognition, this kind of attrition can mess up hiring pipelines for a while and make it difficult to ramp up hiring in the future, which can make it difficult to attra…
For an internal recruiter, what share of compensation is baseline salary and what share is bonuses from successful hires?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm surprised that nobody is questioning this. Zuckerberg owns ~17% of Meta shares, so it quite clearly not "his" company where he can do whatever he pleases. Primarily he is an employee and has a responsibility to the owners (which does include him) to do his job, arguably looking at button padding is not part of his job description.
17% of stocks != 17% of voting rights. I don't know the current numbers, but Zuck was known for aggressive use of priority shares to retain voting control of the company as he was selling shares.
Zuck controls 90% of the voting rights of FB: https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1061237/how-facebook-si...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's with this seemingly-new use of 'staffers' instead of 'personnel' or 'staff?' 'Staffers' to me always meant personnel in a political context, i.e. White House Staffers or, in a commercial context, recruiters, i.e. people responsible for providing staff. Does anyone else concur? I did check with the dictionary which is telling me that 'staffers' is a synonym for 'staff' but... I've not seen it used that way comm…
Aren't staffers the ones who work in hiring, talent acquisition, etc?
In the context of a political organisation it is used to mean 'team members' (because they're not always formally employed staff) but I've not encountered it being used that way to refer to staff/consultants employed by a private company, hence my questioning.
> "Realistically, there are probably a bunch of people at the company who shouldn't be here," Zuckerberg said. > "Part of my hope by raising expectations and having more aggressive goals, and just kind of turning up the heat a little bit, is that I think some of you might decide that this place isn't for you, and that self-selection is OK with me," he said." Incredibly stupid on the face of it. Considering a good man…