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

Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 144 posts

Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”

#81

Post by whiplash451 »

lb1lf wrote: post #57
projectileboy wrote: post #7

It’s incredibly shitty to telegraph to other employers that all the people you’re about to layoff are damaged goods. Completely unnecessary.

-At a former employer, the upper management managed to one-up this by telling those of us still working there that we were the damaged goods; during an all-hands meeting where it was announced that we were to acquire a competitor, our CFO managed to blurt that 'We've learned from past acquisitions, and this time we will ensure that the onboarding experience is a good one. We can not and will not end up with a repeat…

Good lord. Wow. Now that’s classy.

Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”

#82

Post by xboxnolifes »

sbarre wrote: post #53
soperj wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is Bain Capitals MO actually. The whole point is to layoff the highest paid people and have the company coast along on previous momentum, making the profit look better so they call sell it off.

How is this relevant to Google's plans in this case?

The question being answered did not involve Google at all.

Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”

#83

Post by soperj »

sbarre wrote: post #53
soperj wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is Bain Capitals MO actually. The whole point is to layoff the highest paid people and have the company coast along on previous momentum, making the profit look better so they call sell it off.

How is this relevant to Google's plans in this case?

I'm directly replying to someone asking this question:

"With the exception of companies going under or closing divisions or departments what kind of companies shave off “high performers”? "

Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”

#84

Post by soperj »

ivalm wrote: post #51
soperj wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is Bain Capitals MO actually. The whole point is to layoff the highest paid people and have the company coast along on previous momentum, making the profit look better so they call sell it off.

I assure you alphabet isn’t looking for a buyer.

Not what I was suggesting. I was directly answering a question from the parent poster:

"With the exception of companies going under or closing divisions or departments what kind of companies shave off “high performers”? "

Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”

#85

Post by ctvo »

> Under the new system, managers have reportedly been asked to categorise six per cent of Alphabet’s workforce – corresponding to about 10,000 employees – as poor performers.

Stack ranking eventually comes for us all.

Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”

#86

Post by xwdv »

ZiiS wrote: post #69
xwdv wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Google is only laying off poor performers, why hire anyone who has recently worked at Google? Guess you better work harder or be shunned from the industry. Google is a very evil company these days.

The fact someone was not able to move the needle at Google has very close to zero bearing on whether they can deliver for you.

Still, no reason to give the same priority to Google’s poor performers when you can poach people moving the needle at other companies with salacious offers of higher salary and better benefits.

Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”

#87

Post by greenyoda »

pdrojack wrote: post #23
didactickhan wrote: post #4

https://archive.ph/BjMZn

how to get these links ?

Go to http://archive.ph, paste the original URL into the input box, and click "save". You'll be redirected to the archived page, and can copy the archive's URL from your browser's address bar.

If the article has been previously saved, this will happen quickly. If not, you'll need to wait in a queue for the article to be archived.

Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”

#88

Post by kelseyfrog »

Why would Google hire "poor performers" in the first place?

Google, in part, built credibility with its talent because it's hiring process selected for exceptional talent and Googlers levereaged this into basically a passport to work anywhere. Google is shooting itself in the foot by framing it this way in the sense that it destroys the illusion that they have better hiring practices has the cost of not attracting the exceptional candidates they once could.

Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”

#89

Post by Ferrotin »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #88

Why would Google hire "poor performers" in the first place? Google, in part, built credibility with its talent because it's hiring process selected for exceptional talent and Googlers levereaged this into basically a passport to work anywhere. Google is shooting itself in the foot by framing it this way in the sense that it destroys the illusion that they have better hiring practices has the cost of not attracting th…

It should be obvious that many people who pass an interview, by intelligence or hard practice, will slack off on the job.

Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”

#90

Post by greenyoda »

more_corn wrote: post #67

Keep in mind that google employees passed one of the hardest tech screens on the planet and google is a weirdly difficult place to excel at. I’d expect a “low performing” ex-google engineer to be in the top 10% of another company.

Knowing enough about obscure algorithms to pass a tech interview does not automatically make someone productive in a gigantic company. They'd also need to be able to work/communicate effectively in a team (and across teams), write performant and maintainable code, navigate huge legacy code bases, etc.
Post reply on HN