11–20 of 300 posts
Most successful companies I know are constantly recruiting and trying to keep people onboard - why would they be trying to actively get rid of people?
that is for companies without the recruit demand. Amazon has stated before they try to remove the bottom 10% regularly to keep the average performance moving up
The only "positive" here is that it can affect the individual's moral to know you are not meeting expectations - but that has to be communicated regardless. If it's understood it has to be communicated and there is a list specifically including the individual, it's up to the company to manage that communication in a supportive manner.
And the consequences of this secretive list are a culture of fear and uncertainty and doubt. Especially with the harsh consequences such as - if you leave while on this secretive list (which you cannot even know you are on) - you are ineligible for rehire.
The solution is not to maintain a secretive list of employees who have performance issues - it is to be fully transparent about those performance issues and destigmatize being included in this nebulous secretive list in the first place - through a culture of support and shared success.
Honestly it boggles my mind how Amazon managers accept this status quo at the scale that Amazon operates. It is so on it's face a recipe for having a toxic culture which breeds stress, doubt, and only serves to reinforce poor performance outcomes.
Out of all the things I've heard about Amazon culture for its software organization - this single thing (secretive lists of employees with performance issues with "never rehire" consequences that employees can't even understand they are on) symbolizes for me all the reasons I would avoid them as an employer. There is no way to have this process without creating a toxic culture.
It’s not a “conceal” as it is a lack of discussion. I get that being put on performance management plan can be demoralizing. The article makes it appear unjust. It only reveals the true nature of the concealing AFTER it has narrated the whole story with opinions. This is ridiculous. Amazon is doing it exactly right. However there needs to be transparency at the minimum expected performance. For all employees. And whe…
This is distinctly not a "Performance Management Plan", as the plan involves the employee and provides clear guidelines for success. If you're concealing that they're on a PIP at all, it's not a PIP, it's literally just the declaration that you intend to fire someone you deem low performing.
edit And I'll add, I don't think they're legally obligated to tell a person they're not performing to their desired standard, as at-will employment, but it just seems silly to call something a PIP that is actually not at all a PIP.
It’s not a “conceal” as it is a lack of discussion. I get that being put on performance management plan can be demoralizing. The article makes it appear unjust. It only reveals the true nature of the concealing AFTER it has narrated the whole story with opinions. This is ridiculous. Amazon is doing it exactly right. However there needs to be transparency at the minimum expected performance. For all employees. And whe…
> It’s not a “conceal” as it is a lack of discussion. Lack of discussion is concealment. Knowing you're on a formal PIP is to know whatever performance issues your manager might be telling you about are actually serious and that your job is on the line. It's my understanding that formal tracking of performance issues is frequently a CYA step prior to termination.
The fact is the PIP hasn't put their job in jeopardy, it was their not meeting expectations that put their job in jeopardy. The reality is once you're there, it's (a) probably obvious due to your manager's consistent displeasure and (b) almost impossible to get out of either way because even if the manager is wrong the employer will side with the manager. The PIP itself is, as you say, just procedural backside-covering to paper up a decision that was already made.
> Lack of discussion is concealment.
With that in mind, is it really better to torture an employee with a set of steps you know they won't execute to your satisfaction anyways and dole out false hope? It seems far more humane to let them know it isn't working out and to put their stuff in a box.
I bet my lunch money that an employee is far more likely to shape up and deliver in line with expectations when they aren't afraid each day they walk into the office may be their last. I think this gives employees more chance to succeed, not less. More transparency isn't always beneficial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that is for companies without the recruit demand. Amazon has stated before they try to remove the bottom 10% regularly to keep the average performance moving up
Didn't decades of that policy at Microsoft prove that it doesn't work? People then optimize to make sure they only work on projects to keep their score up.
There are many others such as,
- "Hire to fire" https://archive.is/3Bdv7
- Overworking of employees, especially the ones who are on H1B / L1 visa since they are dependent on Amazon for their visa status.
- Code is written and architected with promotions in mind.
- Code is reviewed with bring others down since comments on code reviews are considered a negative metric.
- No one trusts their manger.
That would place Amazon to legally disclose if such an employee is on any list or anything else they have on them, be it paper or digital.
No one *wants* to work for you anymore. You don't need to recruit. If someone is desperate enough they'll let you know.
It’s not a “conceal” as it is a lack of discussion. I get that being put on performance management plan can be demoralizing. The article makes it appear unjust. It only reveals the true nature of the concealing AFTER it has narrated the whole story with opinions. This is ridiculous. Amazon is doing it exactly right. However there needs to be transparency at the minimum expected performance. For all employees. And whe…
> It’s not a “conceal” as it is a lack of discussion. Lack of discussion is concealment. Knowing you're on a formal PIP is to know whatever performance issues your manager might be telling you about are actually serious and that your job is on the line. It's my understanding that formal tracking of performance issues is frequently a CYA step prior to termination.
I was severely jaded by my experience there. When I started, I immediately initiated conversations with my manager about what I could do to make sure I succeeded. I asked the more senior engineers on my team if we could whiteboard about the services we owned and who interacted with them as well as what upstream teams we depended on. The SDE3 told me "I don't know." To this day, I'm still pissed off that an SDE3 who had been on the team for 4+ years "didn't know" who used their services or how the services interacted. And it wasn't that he didn't know - he just didn't give a shit about onboarding newbies.
That same engineer, when I asked him for help in debugging an alert that I had put into a system, threw out some bogus answer and took one step back. I told him I had tried his suggestion. He then gave another bogus answer and took another step back. He literally backed away slowly and after three or four steps, just sat down at his desk and ignored me.
I recognize I'm an N=1, and I have friends that more or less enjoyed their time there, but I saw far too many bullshit patterns from engineers and managers for me to think of Amazon's approach as anything but intentionally malicious.