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

381–390 of 408 posts

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#381

Post by rendall »

cletus wrote: post #357
bentlegen wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s what I’ve observed as a senior manager: First, it’s important to understand that managers are held to outcomes. If a manager retains low performers because “they’re friends”, over time they’ll find themselves with a low performing team and it will be visible in their results. At that stage they are now at the bottom of their manager’s stack-ranking process. Retain and promote your low-performing friends at you…

> First, it’s important to understand that managers are held to outcomes. Respectfully, I disagree. First, let me point out that when I say "popularity" I don't mean friends necessarily in the nepotism sense (in response to your later point). "Popularity" is a reductive term but still a relatively accurate one. What's really going on here is the intangible factors lead other around you to interpret the same set of fa…

Interesting. Sounds plausible. Also, and I mean this respectfully, it also could be a plausible-sounding just-so story.

How could this be fixed? If true, what would we expect to see, versus its not being true?

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#382

Post by whywhywhywhy »

alchemooly wrote: post #211

I've noticed news articles saying that Meta have been cutting back on support staff, like cleaners and custodial roles. To me, these are the wrong people to be cutting. The people who clean Meta are not the reason why Meta is hemorrhaging money. I'm sure they actually do their jobs very well. They should fire the people who are actually causing the problems. Everyone stopped using facebook because they are uncomforta…

>Meta have been cutting back on support staff, like cleaners and custodial roles.

This feels like the megacorp version of when a company is caring how much money stocking cola in the company fridge is costing. Which is a good barometer that it’s time to bail in a small company.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#383

Post by jiggawatts »

function_seven wrote: post #297
cletus wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worse than that. Not only is it graded on a curve but to prevent ratings inflation there are quotas for each ratings bucket. Many deny this, even when presented with concrete proof that such quotas exist (but were called "performance targets"). This itself would be fine except that negative ratings have a target percentage of ~10%. This includes regrettable losses and ratings below Meets All Expectations. Such t…

I'm constantly amazed at how stupid supposed smart people can be when it comes to applying metrics to an organization made up of humans. Stack ranking and related schemes are so obviously going to be gamed, will definitely measure something other than the nominal thing, and will gum up the works. It's one thing to have a Hunger-Games-style hiring process. Bad as that is, there's an expectation that once you've passed…

Stack ranking kinda-sorta makes sense in a sales team, because fundamentally it isn't a team at all. Sales tends to be made up of a bunch of individuals chasing a finite set of opportunities. Firing low-performing sales people won't remove some essential technical knowledge, and won't affect other sales. In fact, poor performing sales people may "fumble" lucrative opportunities that would have been landed if they had been fired and replaced by someone better. Replacing sales staff is also not a big problem. In fact, some new hires will bring customers with them.

None of this is true for creative workers in actual teams with deep technical or site knowledge. Someone with a decade of experience that is a bit burnt out and underperforming may still have amazing contributions albeit less frequently or predictably. Someone that doesn't commit code often but "holds the team together" by lending a helping hand and giving sage advice to juniors can be invaluable. Fire them and the juniors will flounder. New developers not only don't bring customers with them, but likely won't be productive for months. And so on, and so forth.

Stack ranking originates in organisations where sales are in charge at the upper levels. They think that what applies to them applies to everybody else at the organisation.

This is a mistake, of course, but it's fantastically difficult to overcome "cultural" biases like this. Even otherwise very smart people have a blind spot to this kind of thing. After all, the fish is the last to know it swims in water.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#384

Post by sequoia »

mgraczyk wrote: post #252
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!

Not really newspeak. The difference is that you're still getting paid in between and still have a job, pretty different from getting laid off where you often don't get paid and don't have a job.

You get garden leave while you apply for jobs internally. After 30 days (assuming you can't find a new position internally), it seems identical to having been laid off

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#385

Post by sequoia »

groby_b wrote: post #226
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!

1) Vesting continues 2) Salary continues 3) Benefits continue 4) For the duration of the search, you don't have other things to do. ==> It's at the very least a paid job search. (If you only look internally during that time, you're doing it wrong). Please do talk to people who've experienced actual layoffs how that's a comparatively very cushy alternative. And let's not forget that an internal transfer is usually sig…

It all depends on what percentage actually get new job offers internally. If it's "most or all" then it's very different from layoffs. If it's "few to none" than it's very similar to being laid off.

"Pay and benefits for 30 days while you look for a job" this is called "garden leave," a severance package could also cover this. If my position is terminated & I'm paid out two months salary and they continue covering my insurance for 60 days, that's great, but I'm still terminated.

I'm not against this policy, I'm not even against layoffs in all cases. Sometimes you hire a lot, sometimes you cut, that's business. This policy does seem better than direct layoffs, but eliminating people's positions and making them apply for new jobs (with 30 days garden leave) is pretty damn near layoffs. What if no other teams have headcount, what would you call it then?

I was just commenting on the turn of phrase, not laying people off but 'terminating their positions and making them look for a new job.'

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#386

Post by sequoia »

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 should have added this at first but I'm not saying this policy is bad, I'm not even against layoffs in all cases. Sometimes you hire a lot, sometimes you cut, that's business. This policy does seem better than direct layoffs.

I was just commenting on the turn of phrase, not laying people off but 'terminating their positions and making them look for a new job' (which sounds pretty dang near being laid off with garden leave).

The term "layoffs" is obviously toxic, so companies go to lengths to avoid using that particular phrase, even when that's what seems to be happening. I've been at a company while this happened: lots of reductions in headcount over a short period but "we're not doing layoffs."

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#387

Post by lupire »

jiggawatts wrote: post #383
function_seven wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm constantly amazed at how stupid supposed smart people can be when it comes to applying metrics to an organization made up of humans. Stack ranking and related schemes are so obviously going to be gamed, will definitely measure something other than the nominal thing, and will gum up the works. It's one thing to have a Hunger-Games-style hiring process. Bad as that is, there's an expectation that once you've passed…

Stack ranking kinda-sorta makes sense in a sales team, because fundamentally it isn't a team at all. Sales tends to be made up of a bunch of individuals chasing a finite set of opportunities. Firing low-performing sales people won't remove some essential technical knowledge, and won't affect other sales. In fact, poor performing sales people may "fumble" lucrative opportunities that would have been landed if they had…

Meta and Google have "sales" but it's not really the backbone of the business. Sales is largely via automated systems, not personal deals.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#388

Post by DangitBobby »

systemvoltage wrote: post #362
DangitBobby wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, I don't think it's helpful to identify your worst performers (or label them as "bottom 15%") unless they aren't meeting the needs of the position and need to be let go. Someone has to be the worst, and it's really not okay to arbitrarily make 15% of people's lives hell. Again, if they need to go, they need to go, but I really fucking doubt at any given time 15% of an organization is actually bad enough to wa…

> I don't think it's helpful to identify your worst performers (or label them as "bottom 15%") I didn't say that and I didn't imply that. Anyways, rewarding (positive reinforcement) is mutually exclusive to punishment (negative reinforcement). Rewarding should be encouraged, otherwise, I have zero motivation to do better. There are many other companies that would value me more and I would not stay there. Extreme meri…

I think when people bemoan stack ranking, they are talking about what it means for the bottom performers. I certainly don't have any issues with rewarding top performers. Did the company you worked for just rank the top?

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#389

Post by lordswork »

discordance wrote: post #349
lordswork wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how the article states this and concludes Google is cutting staff: >A Google spokesman said almost 95% of employees who expressed interest in staying with the company found new roles within the notice period. Alphabet had 174,014 employees at the end of the second quarter, up 20.8% from the previous year.

I bet the people who approved the hiring 35,000 in one year will not be in the pool of those being let go

I am pointing out the disconnect of the sensationalized title "Google are cutting staff" from the actual article content. The article states ~100 Google employees are being given couple months to find a new role within Google, and they cite that historically, 95% of employees find new roles within the company when this kind of thing happens.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#390

Post by lordswork »

smileysteve wrote: post #184
insane_dreamer wrote: post #116

> Google has required some employees to apply for new jobs is this the new way to say "fired"?

"quiet fired" Or better yet, give them hope, then take it away

>Or better yet, give them hope, then take it away

Based on the quote below, it doesn't seem like they are actually being fired:

>A Google spokesman said almost 95% of employees who expressed interest in staying with the company found new roles within the notice period.

Post reply on HN