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

Meta and Google are cutting staff

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 408 posts

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#201

Post by marcosdumay »

strulovich wrote: post #192
marcosdumay wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I can't find a way to read "graded in the context of peers" that doesn't parse into exactly the same concept as "sort employees by performance". AFAIK, it's not something you can interpret as, those are literally synonyms. But well, stack ranking is not only about sorting (the name is a lie), it's about placing people in fixed sized cohorts. The real question is if there is a limitation on the number of…

The cohorts at Meta are not fixed size (at least not at the team level). You do get to see the average size of cohorts, and you will need to explain why your team doesn’t meet them - for example if the entire team project is going exceedingly well, or the team is really made out if a lot of extraordinarily talented people - then you can argue why you have more than the average rate of excellent rankings.

Hum... To me that sounds like the cohorts have fixed sizes, but the top management will break the rules for their friends.

Anyway, even if it honestly for "extraordinarily talented" people, that's still stupid stack-ranking.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#202

Post by strix_varius »

fleetwoodsnack wrote: post #186
strix_varius wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While that's a nice ideal, it's often not practical. As an IC, you'll rarely be rewarded for pointing out inefficiencies like this publicly - especially if it makes your boss look bad. As a manager, it's often better to expend your social/political capital to advocate for your best employees, rather than to address your worst. Relevant to the top-level topic here, that's why many managers welcome environments in whic…

Seems like the deficiencies exist throughout the entire organization’s vertical. Under-performing workers and underperforming managers acting in their own self interest and shirking responsibilities that would otherwise benefit the organization.

I think you have just described most organizations after they grow beyond their first 1k employees :)

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#203

Post by klabb3 »

sequoia wrote: post #165

Facebook and google have "required some employees to apply for new jobs if they wish to remain at the company." I have to say this is a sort of hilarious newspeak framing of layoffs. "We're not laying you off, you just need to apply and get accepted for a job or else you're terminated." OK, so I was a job-haver, now I'm a job-seeker... but at least I haven't been laid off!

Haha, even a cynic like myself couldn't see this coming. It's a fantastic way to shift focus away from leadership decision making towards competition between the very employees who are supposed to work together. I suspect there will be a lot more politicking than the usual hiring process (which is quite objective, despite its other flaws).

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#204

Post by sfvegandude »

nafix wrote: post #39
rosywoozlechan wrote: post #26

Some of these comments mentioned in the article coming from Meta's leadership about there being people who shouldn't probably be there or to get rid of coasters seems so inhumane and demoralizing. What kind of leadership is that? I mean it's understandable that businesses have to cut costs, but have some empathy, and understand how words affect people. Just wow. It's so cynical and depressing.

I like it. I really dislike working with under-performers and people who just refuse to do due diligence on their end. I dislike working with people who always want you to come over to their frame of mind rather than trying to get into yours or meet in the middle. I saw a ton of people coasting during Covid. People need to get negative feedback when they deserve it.

I also like it, and believe that Meta’s way of going about this is more humane than keeping people on who aren’t performing. We are not talking about underpaid wage slaves here. These are professionals who deserve honest feedback about their work.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#205

Post by strix_varius »

llbeansandrice wrote: post #171
strix_varius wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. It's demoralizing to have an under-performing colleague stick around for months or years. It's even worse to work with someone who's mastered the art of "talking the talk" to get a job, who makes big promises but always has some excuse for why they can't deliver, and who never actually ships anything. Most first-level tech managers don't have the courage to fire fast enough. The best feedback I've ever gotten…

You do understand that this is entirely different than company leadership laying off entire teams right? It could be like SNAP that fired the entire company that they acquired because they had to cut costs but the product was meaningful and I'm sure the team worked very hard on it.

> You do understand that this is entirely different than company leadership laying off entire teams right?

No, this thread:

> Some of these comments mentioned in the article coming from Meta's leadership about there being people who shouldn't probably be there or to get rid of coasters seems so inhumane and demoralizing.

...is specifically about this quote from the article:

> Separately, the company’s head of engineering issued a call for managers to identify employees who were coasting and place them on remediation plans as a prelude to their termination.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#206

Post by gagege »

VHRanger wrote: post #130
whatshisface wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a place you'd go if you were using work to distract you from a problem in your personal life.

Or distract that you're writing code for a platform that harms people

IDK, I wouldn't be able to be distracted from the fact that I'm working for Lord Sauron.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#207

Post by sfvegandude »

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #106
nafix wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like it. I really dislike working with under-performers and people who just refuse to do due diligence on their end. I dislike working with people who always want you to come over to their frame of mind rather than trying to get into yours or meet in the middle. I saw a ton of people coasting during Covid. People need to get negative feedback when they deserve it.

This is under the presumption that most/all of the people being let go are actually low performers, and that leadership is able to correctly identify them. The same leadership that thought those people met the caliber for working there in the first place. I won't deny that there's low performers at any organization, but this is giving the people making the cuts too much credit imo. Double-digit cuts say more about le…

Performance isn’t static. Hiring is hard. Organizational priorities shift, people lose interest, etc. It’s often better for both parities if one just moves on.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#208

Post by waynesonfire »

battery_glasses wrote: post #98
znpy wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was contacted by meta just less than a month ago, and I declined the offer of an interview… I guess i dodged a bullet?

The pay is near top and the engineers are talented. There are a lot of systems in place to get you to work near max capacity all the time with little slowdown time. There are lots of processes and political upheavals that make it hard to ship code. Some people love it.

do they have bidets yet? Try google instead.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#209

Post by Jagerbizzle »

Frost1x wrote: post #134
o10449366 wrote: post #29

The article highlights that the easiest way for these companies to let go of staff right now is to dissolve entire teams. I've heard from friends that work at these companies that recent hiring freezes have actually made managers more hesitant to fire low performers because anyone they fire can't be replaced and they'd rather have a low performer than no one at all. The team dissolving process seems to sidestep this…

>...they'd rather have a low performer than no one at all. Seems contradictory to many modern interview process opinions that low performers introduce a net negative effect.

Agreed. It's easy to plan around and measure the potential business impact of no one. It's challenging to do the same with a low performing or otherwise inconsistent employee.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#210

Post by AyyWS »

sequoia wrote: post #165

Facebook and google have "required some employees to apply for new jobs if they wish to remain at the company." I have to say this is a sort of hilarious newspeak framing of layoffs. "We're not laying you off, you just need to apply and get accepted for a job or else you're terminated." OK, so I was a job-haver, now I'm a job-seeker... but at least I haven't been laid off!

I had the same deal at a big telecom 7 years ago. The offer lasted one month. I moved to a better position with better pay/responsibilities.
Post reply on HN