Live data from Hacker News

I worked in Amazon HR and was disgusted at what I was seeing with PIP plans

businessinsider.com

411–420 of 618 posts

Re: I worked in Amazon HR and was disgusted at what I was seeing with PIP plans

#411
post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forced ranking in your use case doesn't work because it's generally firm wide cascade. Is 6% of every team in every department in every org unnecessary? No, in fact.. there's teams that should be 2x as big and teams that should be completely let go. Management actually needs to do what they get the big bucks for and make strategic decisions about what business lines do/don't need to be staffed rather than culling arb…

> Management actually needs to do what they get the big bucks for and make strategic decisions about what business lines do/don't need to be staffed rather than culling arbitrary %s everywhere. The performance management process and 4-6% "unregretted attrition" (to use the technical term) target at Amazon is totally independent from figuring out project resourcing and headcounts. An employee who is fired for performa…

Yes, that is my point. Past a few iterations, there is not a lot of value in doing this company wide over and over.. versus making hard big picture decisions on resourcing departments properly.

Re: I worked in Amazon HR and was disgusted at what I was seeing with PIP plans

#412

I've heard so many terrible stories about working at Amazon that I'm not sure I would ever work there, both in the media and from friends who were severely mistreated. It's a shame, because some of the tech they work on (like S3) is super interesting and high scale, but I do not want to acquire a mental health crisis from work.

I'm morbidly curious, like if I knew I had a solid job waiting for after and didn't have to stress over it going sideways. They'd probably smell my non-seriousness a mile away though and never hire me.

That's just leverage. Nothing non-serious about it. No reason to sacrifice one's life for a corporation when you have better options. They generally don't want people like that, they want people who will sacrifice. People without options.

Re: I worked in Amazon HR and was disgusted at what I was seeing with PIP plans

#413

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…

Amazon eng manager here, at least for one more day. I think Amazon is easier to get into than the other FAANGs (I've worked at two of them and was very close to getting into another). This is partially because it's easy/required to manage people out, and partially because Amazon has a rotten reputation in the industry. It even feels like some teams hire low performers specifically to feed to the pip machine. Supposed…

Datapoint - as a Wall St tech guy, AMZN & META are the only FAANGs who has reached out to me.. repeatedly. Same for my coworkers.

Re: I worked in Amazon HR and was disgusted at what I was seeing with PIP plans

#414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed that what is left unsaid in a lot of performance conversations is the person-role match. Someone isn't a high/low performer globally, just at that time in that role. Wall St firms I have worked at typically try to find different roles for people before marking them as at risk of a layoff. Not sure FAANG behaves the same, but from all these PIP discussions it seems not.

I left a company years ago because I didn't feel I was a good fit for the team/project - skills/goals/etc. But wasn't allowed to leave because it would hurt the image of the team to be seen to have people leaving it for other teams. But... apparently, leaving the company altogether doesn't affect the image (and yes... I've left the team, and people internally knew why, so... how does it really save face?)

Perhaps if the employee leaves the company entirely, all parts of the company get a chance to pretend the deficiency was in the employee. [0]

Like some weird inverse of the "You can't fire me, I quit!" trope.

[0] P.S.: Even if the employee left for a more prestigious role in another company, the social-circles in the old company aren't forced to acknowledge that the same way as if it were an internal move: HR will just say "they left to pursue other opportunities", and that permits the assumption that that the worker--their incompetence discovered--has fallen into ignominious chronic unemployment.

Re: I worked in Amazon HR and was disgusted at what I was seeing with PIP plans

#415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing about fat that I think is overlooked is how fat today might be muscle tomorrow, and how little companies try to convert it. 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/w…

You should file for disability accommodations. That is completely legal to ask. Sometimes you need to back it up with documentation, but i suspect that won't be a problem. They can't discriminate against you for this.

Unfortunately, there's a HUMONGOUS difference between "not allowed to" and "can't" when a company optimizes for profit at the expense of human well-being.

Re: I worked in Amazon HR and was disgusted at what I was seeing with PIP plans

#416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having been a Navy officer for 20 years active and reserve, one of the other overlooked flaws of the stack rank is that it's a vehicle for cultivating egos. When the only way up is through many levels of being "1 of X, Early Promote," it's fascinating to watch a bright-eyed humble flight student turn into a condescending jerk of an instructor over the years. Turning the performance review system into "winners" and "l…

I have a friend who is getting out (technically going reserve). It sounds like there are lot of factors impacting retention and most of them are being ignored. Why should the leaders focus on things they are a part of and admit fault if they can simply blame stuff on civilian cultural issues or subordinate "weakness"? I heard some of the cyber warfare units are proposing to bring in people in as high as O5. No way th…

IMHO there's a huge blind spot in leadership exactly due to the stack rank, because how do you recommend changes to the system to someone who succeeded and owes their whole career and professional reputation to that system? The answer's going to be "well it worked for me, so it must not be that bad."

The other part of the problem is yes, there are times when the military has every right to expect folks to endure hardship. I mean, the whole point is to send folks into combat if needed, and combat sucks. Being in the field or underway for months at a time sucks, but they're necessary. But because of this, it's easy to slip into "just suck it up" as a response to a whole bunch of hardship, stupidity, or inefficiency that isn't necessary.

The reserves have their own breed of stupidity revolving around reserve center staff enforcing Kafkaesque bureaucratic "readiness" requirements on the drilling reservists. At some point, taking 1/4 of your weekends off to come in and be told you're delinquent on something you turned in three times already, or having to flail to complete some late-breaking tasker gets old. I loved supporting my gaining active duty commands. I retired because I got sick of the hoops I had to jump through to keep doing it.

Cyber is having to bring folks in at a high level to get the experience base they desperately need. This isn't totally unusual though. Surgeons have come in at that level when the military has needed their expertise. And in WWII, FDR brought in an automotive executive as a general officer to supervise wartime production.

Re: I worked in Amazon HR and was disgusted at what I was seeing with PIP plans

#417
post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're mistaken in that you believe that the goal of culls is to cut underperformers. Stack ranking doesn't assess performance, it checks whether you're willing to do a little more to be ahead of your peers. The real goal of culls is to motivate people to work more, to be more accessible to their managers' requests, etc. so they make it "to the next round". It's a pressure tool, not a performance control tool.

This sort of thing is one of the big reasons why I would never work for a FAANG company. I prefer to work at a place that encourages good work rather than a weird cutthroat arena combat thing.

I'm surprised it hasn't spilled over to the rest of the industry, unlike their hiring practices.

Re: I worked in Amazon HR and was disgusted at what I was seeing with PIP plans

#418
post #291

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…

You're mistaken in that you believe that the goal of culls is to cut underperformers. Stack ranking doesn't assess performance, it checks whether you're willing to do a little more to be ahead of your peers. The real goal of culls is to motivate people to work more, to be more accessible to their managers' requests, etc. so they make it "to the next round". It's a pressure tool, not a performance control tool.

I think you're right on the money. and it's completely Toxic. i would never work at a company like that.

if FAANGs can get away with treating their employees like dog s*t then there must be vast over supply of talent.

Re: I worked in Amazon HR and was disgusted at what I was seeing with PIP plans

#419

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…

I was put on a PIP at Red Hat that was quite farcical and very much about personality disconnects between myself and my manager (and made much more annoying by the fact that he had told me before the PIP that multiple other managers had let him know that they would be interested in me being on their team if I was looking for something different - instead he went the PIP route).

There was room for improvement (isn't there always), and on the face of it, to read the PIP "Objectives for success", they all seemed reasonable, and were very ... objective. Specifically to craft some extended documents around a potential product, to capture and present some of the research around that product to a group, etc. About five items.

I completed them. All of them.

My manager and I met for our regular 1:1s where he expressed that things were looking good (well, he no-showed for one, and my skip-level came for another).

I show up to our end-of-PIP review and immediately know the outcome because HR is there with my manager. Part of me was pragmatic. However...

What really ground my gears?

"I have been reviewing the documents and material you created as part of your objectives for the PIP and I feel that they are not of the standard that we need."

I expressed confusion. "When we discussed this in our meetings, you expressed no concern". "They're just not the standard of what we need."

And then literally during the call, I pulled up the documents and discovered/remembered GDocs access list.

I started screen sharing in front of him and HR.

Document 1: Manager - Last Viewed: Never

Document 2: Manager - Last Viewed: Never

About this point he turned his camera off.

Rinse and repeat. Of about 5 documents, presentations, spreadsheets, he'd only ever looked at one of them, at that was months before the PIP.

He mentioned that he had given me feedback more in Google Chat than in our 1:1s. I pulled up our chat history, simple to review, since he'd actually 100% ghosted me for the duration of the PIP. Sitting there in front of HR, with me firing off about a dozen questions, updates, etc., and there's just no responses from manager.

HR had at least the decency to look rather embarrassed about it all. My manager said nothing for the rest of the call.

A few days later someone higher in HR acknowledged that they’d looked at the same things and confirmed my perspective and said that the managers handling of the PIP was not how it should have been but that their decision was final (which was fine, I never expected it to change anyone’s mind).

Re: I worked in Amazon HR and was disgusted at what I was seeing with PIP plans

#420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can they be maintaining these completely antithetitical interests, like wjy do they want to arbitrarily fire the person at all if they have already evaluated that person to be worthy of retention? Why is this even on the table in the absence of any failure to meet whatever metrics? Is it just a big power play that keeps rolling in the expectation of bottomless/infinite talenent and pepetual inflow/attrition?

> Is it just a big power play that keeps rolling in the expectation of bottomless/infinite talenent and pepetual inflow/attrition? This has always been my interpretation. The "everybody is replaceable" mindset comes from Amazon retail warehouses, and bled into the rest of the company.

Even Bezos?
Post reply on HN