231–240 of 618 posts
So its okay doing the evil thing for a while to several professionals, but when it was OPs turn, then its a no-go?
One underlying problem with these PIP type programs at FAANG seems to be that they have very high barriers to entry in the interview process, and then act like 30% of the company is underperforming and subject to an annual 6% cull. There are industries & companies that have grown fat & lazy and could use a few annual 6% culls, but you eventually run out of fat. If you have a very competitive interview process and hig…
Their interview process, while thorough, isn't failproof. Additionally, it primarily assesses candidates at entry, overlooking potential changes in performance that may emerge after a couple of years within the company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think there is any value in just comparing salaries across countries, but I'm sure you already know this. Make it more interesting by add in life expectancy or something else, salary is just a number that doesn't matter much unless you start including other numbers too.
This is a discussion about worker pay. Salary is the metric.
Disagree, the discussion is about much more than just a metric of salaries. Even if you consider the discussion to only be about salary, doesn't it matter how much of that salary you have to spend on things like health insurance VS other places? As that'd eat from your salary (or not).
One underlying problem with these PIP type programs at FAANG seems to be that they have very high barriers to entry in the interview process, and then act like 30% of the company is underperforming and subject to an annual 6% cull. There are industries & companies that have grown fat & lazy and could use a few annual 6% culls, but you eventually run out of fat. If you have a very competitive interview process and hig…
Could you explain this a bit more? I thought that it was the opposite -- you have stock that's going to vest in X years, so you really want to stay.
One underlying problem with these PIP type programs at FAANG seems to be that they have very high barriers to entry in the interview process, and then act like 30% of the company is underperforming and subject to an annual 6% cull. There are industries & companies that have grown fat & lazy and could use a few annual 6% culls, but you eventually run out of fat. If you have a very competitive interview process and hig…
Maybe a person is in a bad role, on a bad team, or simply doesn't have experience or skills fitting the specific requirements of that single point in time. I've been a high performer in the past. Now I'm a low performer (I'm slow) after the company has changed the way it treats teams/work and the technology shifted. My disability isn't suited to the new working style/process (or lack of). However, I do excellent work outside of my regular day to day responsibilities, like my secondary role as an ASC. My manager even said that I'd I could just speed up my regular work I would easily get the highest rating and a promotion. Hearing him say that really sucks because I unable to just speed up with my disability in the given work environment. The company/managers have made no effort in helping me find a role that works better with my skills or is impacted less by my disability. It seems there may not be any of the traditional roles/teams left. So now I fill midlevel roles and move team to team trying to find somewhere that I fit in. If I can find a place I fit in like before, then I would easily excel.
Another example was a dev on another team that I worked with a few years ago was sloppy, slow, and just all around seemed like a poor performer - and even our tech lead and manager talked poorly about him. He was even considerably slower than me. About 3 years after that he's now the head of data and analytics for our international operations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Senior Manager here. This is common to any large entity and may only influenced by workers' rights and culture. 1. Large numbers In large companies, you have numbers. There are 10000 individuals so to say. There is a difference between individuals and groups. The larger the group, the more HR and controlling tend to use their understanding of statistics. This is the conflict between groups and individuals. Why take c…
> Why take care of one person? In sum, it does not pay off. That assessment is extremely short-sighted. The reason it will pay off is because other employees will see how you treat the one person. If they see you give someone who is struggling needed support, they will know that in the future, they might get that as well. Having a stable environment full of people who trust each other will pay off far more in the fut…
> That assessment is extremely short-sighted. The reason it will pay off is because other employees will see how you treat the one person.
Not really. It is about network not performance.
What is going on behind the scenes? Almost every team manager wants to keep his team. So they get at least a normal rating to prevent PIP. HR says, kick X% of the workforce. So what do you do now?
That's when magic happens or the least connected dude get kicked out.
Also: What is performance anyway? It is fairly subjective and you don't rank and rate 100+ people against each other.
Promotion on the other hand is a pyramidal system. 10 promo slots receive 100 applications. How do you decide? Whom does a promo help? In reality, the senior manager pulls the strings. And there can always be creativity in downranking someone or promote someone.
> By "officially" do you mean legally?
Yes.
But again: no system is perfect. There will always be some bending.
What I wanted to say is, performance reviews are mostly and at large the only question whether you make the cut or not. This is a 50% to 50% decision. Everything else is BS. How many "10x devs" are there?
And same goes for applications: the best preparation, the best interview does never guarantee a job. If on one application 10 awesome devs apply - how do you decide?
Take cheating into account, then you will understand that jobs are a number's game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their interview process, while thorough, isn't failproof. Additionally, it primarily assesses candidates at entry, overlooking potential changes in performance that may emerge after a couple of years within the company.
If 6-30% are failing year after year after year, you can't blame the interview process. You could blame the leadership failure that didn't fix the interview process, though.
Of all the FAANG, I almost admire Amazon for chewing up & disposing of their white collar work force the same way they do their blue collar.
The other guys are all pretty bad to work for at the bottom non-SWE tiers, but have cushy SWE adult daycare office environments. At least Amazon treats all their employees as disposable?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How Amazon's behavior here, clearly mandated as official corporate policy, is not an instant class action lawsuit demonstrates how far we are in our "late stage capitalism" and economic slaves, not free, not by half.
In earlier times, they'd just fire you without any kind of PIP process. Are you saying that PIP vs. immediate firing is worse?
Being fired: Happens quickly, they either give you a reason or tell you "your position has been eliminated." Sucks, but rips the Band Aid off and done is done.
PIP: I've seen this happen to good and bad employees. Bad employees - it just drags out the process and provides a lot of friction and anguish, for the manager and maybe the employee. (Depends on whether they are actually even aware they're a bad fit or not, and whether they're well-intentioned or not.)
Good employees? It's literally gaslighting people. One day they're pulled aside and told they're not performing well enough and given a PIP. The PIP usually isn't designed to help them get performance up - it's creating a paper trail to manage them out.
Suddenly (as described in the parent article) they're being hit with complaints they've never heard before. Maybe there's substance, maybe not. It's a major blow to self-esteem and it's a dragged out process. They're not even given the satisfaction of a quick firing where they can be angry and done. It's a long suffering.
And to make the managers do this stuff - it's awful. Having to lay somebody off when a company RIFs people sucks. Having to fire people usually sucks unless they've really earned it. But telling a manager they have to PIP a percentage of their team arbitrarily and participate in this gaslighting process is simply evil.
One underlying problem with these PIP type programs at FAANG seems to be that they have very high barriers to entry in the interview process, and then act like 30% of the company is underperforming and subject to an annual 6% cull. There are industries & companies that have grown fat & lazy and could use a few annual 6% culls, but you eventually run out of fat. If you have a very competitive interview process and hig…
> the old Wall St model of doing one cut in one afternoon, calling people into an office and giving a severance is far more humane. Since when did being "humane" contribute to profit? > Everyone understood it was about the numbers not about your performance The idea is literally to make the remaining employees think it's about performance. The company doesn't care what ex-employees think.
Better than a pervasive dread amongst the whole workforce.