291–300 of 509 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does this work well? Aren’t the good people the first to leave if you decide to make everyone miserable?
the good people are the ones that perform well in the kitchen when it gets hot.
I wonder... will the people who hired deadwood get shafted, or will they consider how to improve their hiring process? (ha. ha. ha.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every sufficiently large company has a lot of dead wood, and nobody has yet devised a better strategy than 'turning up the heat'.
Citation needed. alternative strategies would include: Rewarding good employees and firing bad ones. Deciding on actual useful performance metrics ahead of time and measuring people against them.
I worked at Meta for 2 years and the pressure to land features while keeping up on your code review/LoC metrics was a fucking nightmare during the boom times. I can only imagine how shitty it will get with the specter of layoffs floating around
I worked at Meta for 2 years and the pressure to land features while keeping up on your code review/LoC metrics was a fucking nightmare during the boom times. I can only imagine how shitty it will get with the specter of layoffs floating around
Assuming LoC = lines of code... seriously? That's by far the dumbest metric for measuring software engineer productivity that exists.
Managers will tell you that those metrics are not important to your performance review , but it is absolutely not true. They didn’t make the graph so it can be ignored.
Yeah, "we hired people we shouldn't have so now we're going to make it increasingly unpleasant to work here" doesn't work. First-hand, what I've seen happen is that your most talented people, who are the most in demand, leave the organization quite quickly because they correctly realize they don't have to put up with this bullshit. It's the coasters who fear they'll never land an equally cushy job who attempt to ride…
It's absolute insanity that they don't see that the best talent can and will walk out the door if this happens. Even if the top performers are insulated from the "heat" there are a non-zero number of them that this won't sit right with and/or they are affected and they leave. Any company who uses this kind of shadow-layoff or whatever you want to call it is scum, plain and simple. I mean that's no surprise for Meta o…
When your 51% CEO has so little life experience, what did you expect? There's a reason why - IN GENERAL - the best CEOs are older than 55.
Zuck got lucky with FB and made billions selling personal data and retained 51% control. Did we really think he was actually GOOD at anything?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citation needed. alternative strategies would include: Rewarding good employees and firing bad ones. Deciding on actual useful performance metrics ahead of time and measuring people against them.
This is exactly what they are doing with one improvement: instead of firing, they are allowing attrition to happen naturally. That’s better than layoffs
Making everybody suffer until some people leave because it’s intolerable to them… that doesn’t sound better to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every sufficiently large company has a lot of dead wood, and nobody has yet devised a better strategy than 'turning up the heat'.
Because expecting managers to do their damn jobs would just be too hard? It wasn't the #1 reason but "dead wood" probably ranked 2 or 3 for why I left my last job and it was 100% the manager's fault. Had that company decided to "turn up the heat" I would have left even faster and I can promise you the "dead wood" would have stayed till the bitter end. I doubt the claim that no one has come up with a better strategy a…
So yes, expecting managers to put company interests before their own may actually be too hard.
Since men on average prefer a colder work environment than women, I wonder if this will lead to a disproportionate number of males leaving the workplace, improving their male:female ratio?
> some of you might decide that this place isn’t for you, and that self-selection is OK with me Of course he's ok with it, no need to pay severance to employees that "voluntarily" quit.
While I'm sure that, ceteris paribus, they're more happy if low performers quit than have to be laid off, I'm equally sure that if they felt like they could go through and cut out low performers right now, and the only cost to do so was paying severance, they'd be happy to do it. The idea that Facebook or Zuckerberg of all people has an unwillingness to pay short-term costs for long term benefits is crazy.
There's a difference between being cynical about a corporation and being willing to attribute every bad trait in the world unconditionally to every corporation without any reflection.
Yeah, "we hired people we shouldn't have so now we're going to make it increasingly unpleasant to work here" doesn't work. First-hand, what I've seen happen is that your most talented people, who are the most in demand, leave the organization quite quickly because they correctly realize they don't have to put up with this bullshit. It's the coasters who fear they'll never land an equally cushy job who attempt to ride…
> Yeah, "we hired people we shouldn't have so now we're going to make it increasingly unpleasant to work here" doesn't work. But that's not what Meta is saying. The goal isn't just to make it miserable. The goal is to raise the expectations and hold people accountable throughout the company. The exact quote "Realistically, there are probably a bunch of people at the company who shouldn’t be here" is hard to argue wit…