Facebook Conducts 'Quiet Layoffs' By Urging Managers To Identify Certain Number of Workers as Underperforming (businessinsider.com) 140
Mark Zuckerberg and other Facebook leaders have given many hints that a reorganization is coming. Now, a specific number of workers are to be deemed "needs support," Insider has learned. From the report: The company is already telling some to find other jobs, leaving workers to call it "quiet layoffs." It told staff last week in a weekly Q&A with CEO Mark Zuckerberg that it was extending a hiring freeze that's been in place since May. Just before this meeting, executives told directors across the company that they should select at least 15% of their teams to be labeled as "needs support" in an internal review process, one of the people who spoke with Insider said.
All the workers asked not to be identified discussing nonpublic information. This was also discussed last week in a post from a Meta worker on Blind, an app popular with tech workers that requires a valid company email address to use anonymously. "These 15% will likely be put on PIP and be let go," the person wrote. The post prompted hundreds of comments from many other Meta workers who debated how many people would be let go. In Facebook's employee-review process, someone deemed in need of support is ostensibly dipping below performance goals. It is broadly seen by workers as a "performance-improvement plan," or PIP, and a precursor to losing your job. In July, Maher Saba, Meta's head of engineering, told managers they needed to identify everyone on their teams who fell into the "needs-support" category but did not specify a percentage of people who should be labeled that way.
All the workers asked not to be identified discussing nonpublic information. This was also discussed last week in a post from a Meta worker on Blind, an app popular with tech workers that requires a valid company email address to use anonymously. "These 15% will likely be put on PIP and be let go," the person wrote. The post prompted hundreds of comments from many other Meta workers who debated how many people would be let go. In Facebook's employee-review process, someone deemed in need of support is ostensibly dipping below performance goals. It is broadly seen by workers as a "performance-improvement plan," or PIP, and a precursor to losing your job. In July, Maher Saba, Meta's head of engineering, told managers they needed to identify everyone on their teams who fell into the "needs-support" category but did not specify a percentage of people who should be labeled that way.
Quiet quitting == Quiet firing (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not quiet quitting (Score:4, Insightful)
And these are Facebook engineers. They'll have a job the next day. A little less pay and a *lot* less stress and work. It's unlikely any of them are working to rule. FB pays well but treats you like garbage. If they're "underperforming" it's because FB burned them out. Now that they're used up they're being thrown out.
Use 'em like toilet paper, treat 'em like shit. That's the kind of company FB is. Most companies would go out of business like that but FB got an early lead in social media and since we don't enforce anti-trust law every time they have a competitor they either buy it up or run it out of business.
People bitch all day about Facebook but vote for pro-corporate politicians who won't enforce the laws that would reign them in. I'm sick of it. If you're not gonna do what needs to be done stop complaining and get out of our way so we can do it.
Re:It's not quiet quitting (Score:5, Insightful)
I defy you to write a job description good enough to "work to rule" for any position of significance. In my career, going back about 30 years, I've never had a position where the description accounted for more than 20% of what I did.
work to rule strikes work in subways / buses / etc (Score:2)
work to rule strikes work in subways / buses / etc.
When you have stuff like min door open time at an stop well when it's empty you don't keep the door open for the full time but when on work to rule strike you keep it open for at least that time or more.
Re: (Score:2)
Most jobs out there are cookie cutter. Real software development, they kind that involves writing significant new code instead of patching together frameworks or adding content to big third package, is difficult to quantify for the purposes of an HR written job description. Even in an interview it's difficult to really get across what the job is or isn't. Because jobs change month to month. I wanted a guy to work on the serial port drivers, because that's the need for today, but when that's done maybe I
Re: It's not quiet quitting (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I defy you to write a job description good enough to "work to rule" for any position of significance. In my career, going back about 30 years, I've never had a position where the description accounted for more than 20% of what I did.
Then you need to start looking for better jobs. The further in my career I've gotten, the more specific my job descriptions have become. "other tasks as required" isn't really a thing for me any more. For what I earn, a company doesn't want me shifting boxes on a regular basis.
Re:Cult of Work (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm over 50, and I've been in the industry 30 years. How does adapting what you do to the needs of the situation lead to "buying into the lie"? I'm paid very fairly, and I contribute what I can to whatever needs to be done. Everybody wins.
Re: (Score:2)
(Hate to double-reply, but...) How do you know how I define my entire self-worth?
Re: (Score:2)
you're defining your entire self worth based on how much money you can make for somebody else. It's weird and kind of sad. You've bought into a lie.
Unless he's working overtime or beyond his contract he isn't buying into any lie or doing anything for anyone else other than what is agreed and renumerated for.
The reality is a job description is always going to be flexible and you know what? It doesn't matter. You have to be a special level of toxic inflexible shit to say literally "not my job", when you otherwise would still be paid to do it on the clock in a normal manner. It's also a great way to ensure you won't ever progress in your career because no
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone doing 60 hours a week and is not paid hourly needs to find a better job. Now maybe now and then in a crunch, but if that's the normal number of hours and it's in EU or US then the company is skirting around the law.
Re: Cult of Work (Score:2)
The value you bring to the market vs the value of being a good person are two different things.
I wish the world was more fair and we could live in a star trek society where people persued their passions, interests, and bettered themselves free of poverty, corruption, and evil since I was a child. I loved star trek the next generation.
As a mid 40 year old man and a former socialist who was abused by employers I came to a saddened conclusion. It's not reality
At the end of the day the world is an evil f****d u
Re: (Score:3)
Why would I quit? Capitalism has treated me just fine. I like what I do. And I like to think that when I get paid, it's because I contributed. I want a better life, I do higher level work.
I don't think you understand what communism means, historically. Under that, my work and my compensation would be disconnected. No thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FB pays well but treats you like garbage.
I have first hand experience of being a developer at Microsoft and FB over the past 18 years. I've honestly not seen myself nor any colleagues ever treated like garbage at FB or Microsoft (other than the testing team at Microsoft who were all dismissed too abruptly). I've only seen consistent respect and support from management at both companies, plus also transparency from management at Facebook. I also worked a fairly steady 40hr/wk average at both companies, using flexibility e.g. starting the day 3hrs e
Re: (Score:2)
Are you a troll or a shill? Poe's law makes it impossible to tell.
Re: It's not quiet quitting (Score:2)
So what do you call it when an industry decides to collectively bargain?
Re: The stock market is collusion (Score:2)
No I mean like say all companies that manufacture widgets agree that none of them will sell any widgets for anything less than say $100. Literally, collective bargaining. Fundamentally the same as what labor unions do.
Re: The stock market is collusion (Score:2)
That is called a cartel.
Re: (Score:2)
You know wanna look at the best example of collusion in the market place - the term is labor union.
This is no more "collusion" in the intended legal sense than a company's executives meeting in the board room to discuss cutting wages/benefits.
Insurance fraud by any other name (Score:5, Interesting)
Facebook/Meta's answer to quiet quitting: quiet firing. If you're on a PIP, better start looking for another job, FAST!
Basically workers comp/unemployment insurance is a privatised tax on firms to cover paying unemployment etc. Meta (who are probably self insured) are trying to avoid paying out on this by fraudulently disguising layoffs as being fired for cause. Expect a class action to demand payment on this at some point. They're not the first firm to do this nor will they be the last.
Re:Insurance fraud by any other name (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If fired for cause you still get unemployment. If "laid off" then most big companies do give you severance, but that's very different. Severance is extra pay after you sign a form that says you will not sue for being laid off. Being fired for cause means that they will risk you suing because they have enough evidence to back it up. That's why they start with the PIP (performance improvement plan), because it helps document that you were underperforming, were notified, and failed to improve. Those same d
Re: (Score:2)
In the long run, though, their insurance rates may go up if they have a history of laying off people all the time:
The 2021 Illinois state unemployment insurance (SUI) experience-rated [ey.com] tax rates will range from 0.675% to 6.875%, an increase of 0.5% from the range of 0.625% to 6.825% for 2020. The SUI taxable wage base also increases to $12,960 for 2021, up from $12,740 for 2020. (Illinois Department of Employment Security website.)
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but I believe that letting go the bottom percent of workers is not firing for cause. Firing for cause would be more like firing someone for stealing, moonlighting when that's prohibited by published company policies, sexual harassment, and the like.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook/Meta's answer to quiet quitting: quiet firing. If you're on a PIP, better start looking for another job, FAST!
Basically workers comp/unemployment insurance is a privatised tax on firms to cover paying unemployment etc. Meta (who are probably self insured) are trying to avoid paying out on this by fraudulently disguising layoffs as being fired for cause. Expect a class action to demand payment on this at some point. They're not the first firm to do this nor will they be the last.
Being an under performing worker is not being 'fired for cause'.
Failing a mandatory drug test, assaulting a co-worker, stealing company property, those are the kinds of things that can get you fired for cause [thebalancemoney.com]. There is no way they're trying to set up a "fired for cause" scenario.
And unemployment is paid by taxes, not by the employer's insurance. It would be insane if a company trying to cut costs had to still pay salary for the employees it laid off. So again, your post is completely wrong.
Now... as to what
Re: (Score:2)
$1,000 per week? My state's maximum is $275/week. :)
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's pretty well understood that if you're on any sort of PIP-like list/program that you need to find a new job. Once your manager identifies you as a low performer it's a lot easier to start over in a new job than to try to change his or her perception of you. I've seen some really talented folks end up in this category because they're working for an untalented manager or at a toxic workplace.
I don't worry too much for Facebook employees. The job market for engineers and software people is still
Re: (Score:2)
Had a friend who had glowing reports, got a new manager and suddenly he was disliked and told to do extra work on the side (such as being a PhD he needed to write lots of white papers and not just design and write the software that was his job description). Essentiallyhaving the minimum 15 pieces of flair was not good enough. Within a year of the new manager he was on the PIP and out the door.
Re: (Score:2)
Had a friend who had glowing reports, got a new manager and suddenly he was disliked and told to do extra work on the side (such as being a PhD he needed to write lots of white papers and not just design and write the software that was his job description). Essentiallyhaving the minimum 15 pieces of flair was not good enough. Within a year of the new manager he was on the PIP and out the door.
This happens more often than most people realize. And situations where an entire project gets cancelled are also problematic.
That's why when people ask me where they should apply for jobs, I always recommend choosing companies that make internal team transfers easy, and avoiding companies that make you re-apply as if you were an external candidate. Life's too short to deal with companies where a manager change can force you to find a whole new employer, or where being stuck in the same job with no easy wa
Re: (Score:2)
Considering all the companies out there who are whining they can't find people to fill jobs, this shouldn't be that difficult. Right, companies?
Re: (Score:2)
All those other companies might be in the same boat when the recession shows up. Everyone should have their resumes up to date and ways to prove that they are an Alice and not a Dilbert or Wally.
Re: (Score:2)
Quiet quitting has gone on for eternity. Forgot those who claim that they are required work 80 hours a week, because the law doesn't support that. Going home after 8 hours in the office is not "quiet quitting", it's really just doing the normal thing. If you are on call 24/7 for more than a few days, then you're in a bad job, if you have skills then quit and go elsewhere.
Now, there ARE slackers everywhere. Companies don't like to admit it. Even those places where someone claims incredulously "we only h
Re: (Score:2)
> If your management is onto those tricks then start an incentive to move to Agile Methodology where you can never be held accountable anymore.
How can you never be held accountable anymore when you have at most a two week period to get story points done?
Don't get your points done and your are in the shit. Don't get your points done enough times and you are probably fired. That seems pretty accountable to me.
Re: (Score:2)
But you never have an end goal. And you pick your own stories and tasks most of the time (under real agile, the team picks them, not managers or stake holders). These are two week sprints, not two week milestones/deadlines. If it's a web thing, where Agile kind of works, then just tweak a UI element somewhere for no apparent reason. If it's embedded systems like where I am, almost nothing gets done in 2 weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
>But you never have an end goal.
No, you ALWAYS have an end goal - the end of the sprint, with all your story points done.
>And you pick your own stories and tasks most of the time (under real agile, the team picks them, not managers or stake holders).
Are you sure you're talking about Agile? Because what you are describing ain't it. In Agile, the Product Owner assigns the team tasks. These tasks are made up of previously estimated stories that have something associated called "points". The Product
Hope they do (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hope they do (Score:5, Funny)
I wasn't with you in the beginning of that statement, but I like where it ended.
Glad I stayed for the ride.
what are the goals and how are they measured? (Score:2)
Having never been subject to a set of goals during my career, I am unclear as to what they might be in this case. Whatever they are, I assume this is a non-subjective way that they're measured so you and your boss can immediately see what the problems are and what you need to do to correct them. Otherwise, its all subjective bullshit and, as a worker, you have no chance.
Re: what are the goals and how are they measured? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given the goal of the PIP process is to lay off the workforce, having a subjective unachievable target is the way to do it.
One of the crap parts about this is that it undermines the standard performance improvement process. Managers should be able to go to employees, tell them that they aren't performing and that they need to do better. However if this is done in a formal way most employees will leave (as they should, in the current abuse of PIP I would too).
Nothing new here folks (Score:2)
This has been done for decades, it's nothing new. People must wake up to the fact that long-term employment with one employer is ancient history. Companies owe you for the time you work for them and nobody is irreplaceable. The fact that it's happening at Meta is no different, the founder is $71+ Billion [cbsnews.com] in the hole and he's now going to spread the pain.
Re: (Score:3)
This has been done for decades, it's nothing new. People must wake up to the fact that long-term employment with one employer is ancient history.
Yet in every job interview I get hassled about how short my periods of employment are. Never mind that half the tech companies I worked for were startups that folded during boom-bust cycles...
Re:Nothing new here folks (Score:5, Insightful)
When you wonder why there's a "labor shortage" when half the adult population doesn't have a job, this is part of the reason. Employers designate huge chunks of the labor pool as "undesirable" for no good reason.
The real reason they can't hire anyone is bad management, which this is but one manifestation of.
Re: (Score:2)
Another part of the reason for the perceived shortage is dishonesty. The last place I interviewed for offered a max salary of $180K in their listing, so I said, "sure, I'll talk to them". They ended up sending an offer, and during the subsequent discussion it turned out that the max salary was actually $125K, and that was with no insurance or any other benefits at all, and any time off was unpaid. The interviewing manager got a little pissy when I very politely told them the compensation wasn't reasonabl
Re: (Score:3)
The problem that I have with this is that as people age and get into their late forties, fifties or sometimes even sixties, they are going to find that employers are usually less willing to hire them, because they want young and fresh talent. They don't come out and say this, of course... but the older job applicants are rarely called back after the first interview.
As the expected duration of a job length drops, it becomes all but impossible for someone in software development industry who is aging to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can blame corporate Wikis for providing a place to record and share institutional knowledge.
So they're just trying to avoid severance (Score:5, Insightful)
Cutting 15% of your workforce is one thing, but if they just did a regular layoff they would be on the hook for severance. By manufacturing a reason to fire them, they won't be on the hook to pay them anything.
Tuning layoffs into firings just to avoid paying severance is another level of evil entirely.
Re:So they're just trying to avoid severance (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Once the layoff process has started, no, but if it hasn't started yet then that is exactly what they are trying todo.
There is absolutely 0% chance that exactly 15% of employees are screwing the pooch which just so happens to be equal to the 15% employee reduction Meta needs to balance their reduced revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
What I expect meta is hoping for here is that with this news, some employees will simply quit (and no severance will have to be paid).
If enough employees don't quit, however... it won't matter how few people they try to "fire"... it will legally be considered the same thing as a layoff unless the employer can prove some actual workplace misconduct. In jurisdictions where severance pay in lieu of notice of termination is required by law unless there was some form of workplace misconduct,, they would def
Re: (Score:2)
You generally can't turn a layoff into a firing to avoid paying severance unless there was some provable workplace misconduct - dishonesty, stealing, insubordination, assault, or the like. Firing someone for not doing their job well enough would be considered the exact same as laying them off under the law.
Hence people are "managed out" by manufacturing these things.
"Give me six lines written by the most honest of men and I will find something with which to have him hanged." as the old saying goes. This is why most nations have industrial relations laws to prevent this and if it happens (because prevention can only do so much) gives a dismissed employee recourse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the jurisdiction, actually... but that's not the point.
My point was that where a layoff would be eligible for severance and a firing would not, you cannot simply use underperformance as a reason to fire someone simply in order to avoid paying severance. It would be, as far as the law is concerned, the exact same thing as being laid off.
This matters in terms of the law because whether you are fired for some actual employee misconduct or simply laid off can not only impact any severance t
Re: (Score:2)
This matters in terms of the law because whether you are fired for some actual employee misconduct or simply laid off can not only impact any severance that might otherwise be applicable, but can also affect your eligibility to receive employment insurance benefits.
Employers that dishonestly try to claim that people are being fired (even on account of underperformance) when they should be saying on the paperwork that they were laid off could be reprimanded, or even fined if it is not an isolated occurrence.
You're right, but any enforcement of the law would be in the hands of the state and that could take a long time to settle, all the while the "fired" employees are left hanging out to dry.
Yes, the employees could sue but an individual suing Meta is financial suicide while a class-action lawsuit means handing over 50% of your severance to the lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if employment insurance is on the table. They tend to get really persnickety about employers who lie on government forms. When an agent calls to find out what happened (ie, why is a person who was supposedly fired even applying for ei?) If the employer doesn't have a record of any actual workplace misconduct, then
Re: (Score:2)
If you've gt a PIP chances are very high you won't get severance. Don't wait during the PIP.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I've seen, most companies do pay a severance even for a pipped employee.
The carrot is that you have to sign away your right to sue for wrongful termination. So from the company's point of view, it's insurance against dealing with a lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
Severance is always optional. They do have to pay out unused vacation or sick days though, depending upon the state. But severance pay is essentially a negotiation that says "no hard feelings" and usually requires the recipient to sign an agreement to not sure or otherwise cause hardship for the company.
Re: (Score:2)
Firing for cause requires a process to be followed. Specific infractions have to be identified. A "performance improvement plan" has to be developed and followed. The employee has to be given multiple opportunities to improve. All this has to happen before a termination can be considered "for cause."
None of these are legal requirements, but procedural. Still, if Facebook doesn't follow these steps, it leaves itself open to lawsuits by laid-off employees who will claim that they were terminated without cause
Employees cost money to terminate (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While contract workers ARE the easiest to get rid of, more and more you are seeing the W2 direct employees getting the boot first and them keeping contractors.
With the contractors, they aren't h
In other companies... (Score:2, Insightful)
...they don't use cutesie labels like "need's support". They can just tell it like it is...some employees are dead weight. It shouldn't be "controversial" that the lowest performing employees at a company are pushed out. If you need that much "support"...you're just a burden on the employees that don't need their hand constantly held (or asses regularly kicked).
Re: (Score:2)
There is something to what you've said, but asking your managers to find specifically 15% to cut means it's not actually about that.
A more sensible (and legal) way to proceed would be to identify actual dead weight, either get them up to speed quickly or let them go, and then see how many more cuts you have to make to achieve your goals. You'd still get to remove a percentage of the workforce without paying severance.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I'm reading, it sounds like that is what they are doing..."select 15% to label as "needs support"" It's a bit "jargon-y"...but is still basically "identify the low performers".
Yeah, specifying a percentage seems a bit arbitrary...but I suppose they have to give those performing the task >some sort of reference point...otherwise, how do they know how far to go? Are they done at 5%? ...or 5 employees? ...or 25%? I doubt the 15% number is as set-in-stone as everyone on the outside, reading som
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, very few managers will willingly get any of their workers fired. Even a pretty incompetent worker often contributes something sometimes, and some managers like to "empire build" larger organizations under their control, and firing someone is stressful for the manager and worker and the manager's other subordinates. So to cut head count, you basically have to force a certain percentage of firing at a certain level.
I personally (Score:2)
Nothing wrong with this (Score:2)
told managers they needed to identify everyone on their teams who fell into the "needs-support" category but did not specify a percentage of people who should be labeled that way
If that's really the way it is, then it's just a call to get rid of deadwood. Nothing wrong with that, every organization ought to houseclean once in a while.
Of course, likely managers (especially high-level managers) are exempt from this. They are never deadwood. /s
There ought to be a law against this (Score:3)
I am all for layoffs, but this isn't the way to do it. Falsely labeling someone as underperforming isn't right, if they are doing their job as contracted. Asking managers to put their "bottom 15%" on a PIP, when that 15% could actually be performing to expected/contracted level is basically a form of fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine, my issue is that they assume that there is a "bottom 15%" under virtually every manager that is not meeting performance criteria. How can they be sure that every manager has at least 15% of employees who are underperforming?
Re: (Score:2)
If they gave them a decent rating, then they have every right to expect that such performance was the amount expected of them. I see no way for Facebook to suddenly increase the expectation without sufficient notice. They could tell them there is no longer a need for their position or something like that, but not a rating downgrade. You can't retroactively increase expectations. It's like you get hired to deliver packages from A to B and were doing it in 10 minutes ..and being told that's fine .. you can't
Cannot get that number (Score:2)
For a team of 12 people for example, all of whom perform above the goal assessment. How do you find that 15%?
You either find whoever underperforming or you find the lowest performing 15% but you can't find the first that matches the second. Don't forget if you find the lowest performing 15%, this result is NOT always true, depending on the manager's ability to assess and whether his assessment was completely unbiased.
Not a New Practice (Score:2)
For a number of years, I was the supervisor of a small software test team at Unisys. I was directed to evaluate the members of my team annually. This was true for projects that lasted only 9 months and for projects that lasted 15 months. I argued that evaluations should either be upon completion of a project or at a major milestone within a project, but I was overruled.
The members of my team and indeed most of the employees in my department were salaried professionals. Unisys insisted that I evaluate ea
Somebody that won a house bidding war in Feb. (Score:2)
Shittiest way of doing things (Score:2)
Forcing managers to identify a portion of the team as under performing is extremely unfair. It guarantees you're going to get rid of high performers and keep under performers in the organization. It penalizes high performing teams where the manager is doing their job and creating a solid team, and helps managers doing a poor job.
Just like any other layoff (Score:2)
Whenever any company goes through a layoff, if its leadership is at all responsible, it will try to identify lower performers to lay off, and keep higher performers.
Off subject, but had to say Blind is a hoot! (Score:2)
Why ask managers? (Score:2)
Just fire them, you won't fire someone who is needed.
Start at the C-Level and move down 'til the required savings have been attained.
Will FB Board of Directrs quietly fire Zuckerberg? (Score:2)
Re:Quiet BS (Score:5, Insightful)
They realized their money tied up in high end corporate real estate is at risk by the obvious realization that wfw is largely wasteful and unnecessary with modern tech, and further people being able to demand better wages and working conditions was putting their yachts at risk. So yeah, they're creating an artificial surplus to try to stop the bleeding temporarily.
Of course, Meta is doing poorly, so that's easy. It would be harder for successful companies to pull this off, they risk making themselves unsuccessful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>Hard to believe but money does not grow on trees and investors want their returns on their investments.
Yes, but what they don't deserve is continued YOY record profits. Such as the massive profits corporations have been raking in from the current world crises.
Re: (Score:2)
"Layoffs are good for any company. Typically the star performers carry the slack from the weaker ones. Getting rid of underperformers both reminds the mediocre not to take their jobs for granted and gives the opportunity to support the star performers with better employees..."
The relentlessly pro-corporate tone of your comment, with its built in assumption that an insecure employee is a more productive employee, is perhaps more informative than you know.
If I had a nasty, cynical mind, I might suggest that
Re: (Score:2)
My dude, did you see how they are down 52% ?
Or how people who use it have vastly higher levels of depression ?
Or how they censor the posts that don't share their views ?
FB should be sank into the funk part of the ocean.
poor metrics can get good people canned and let ba (Score:2)
poor metrics can get good people canned and let bad ones keep there jobs.
Or make so that the good people eat time making there metrics look good vs getting real work done.
Re:Such Innovation!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
As an additional note, if some kind of massive recession is on the horizon, tech companies that rely on selling ads and non-essential goods are the first to start laying off employees. You see, ad spending is the first thing to go when companies are squeezed and people stop spending on non-essential goods during recessions (especially recessions that come together with a cost-of-living crisis).
Re: (Score:3)
Forcing people into a performance bell-curve and firing the "underperformers" is the dumbest shit around. It's painting everyone with a broad brush by managers who are too lazy to figure out where the inefficiencies really are. I've seen it destroy working groups, including having it happen to a group I was in. What happens over time is positions are not refilled, so a group can get cut down to bone where all that remains is essential. Think of a group where everyone has a different skill role and there
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ever noticed that those people tend to be the managers' favorites and are never the ones who get written up or laid off?
Re: (Score:3)
Respectfully disagree.
I work for a government agency doing your usual accounts management stuff. During covid we had 30 people on our team, and I was closing 40% of the tickets as we transitioned to WFH. Most of my coworkers decided WFH meant half day, meanwhile staff was pinging me left and right on teams because I was the only one responding, and the only one resolving.
A lot of these guys think they'll
Re: Such Innovation!!! (Score:2)
I agree it's insulting and impersonal to be put on a performance review for political reasons or to disguise a layoff.
But I do not think that is going on. Phase 1 of any layoff or outsource is to can those with performance or attendance problems. Phase 2 is hiring freeze. Phase 3 is a actually laying off. Last causing major morale problems and an exodus of the top performers and bad press. Phase 3 is to to be a avoided as a last resort.
But any budget cut you lay off the under performers first before touchin
Re: (Score:2)
Forcing people into a performance bell-curve and firing the "underperformers" is the dumbest shit around. It's painting everyone with a broad brush by managers who are too lazy to figure out where the inefficiencies really are. I've seen it destroy working groups, including having it happen to a group I was in. What happens over time is positions are not refilled, so a group can get cut down to bone where all that remains is essential. Think of a group where everyone has a different skill role and there is no overlapping - now you cut one more person and the whole group fails.
Here is a car analogy - I'd like everyone with a car to designate one of the wheels as underperforming and get rid of it. Hey it's less maintenance cost - less wheels to maintain - but I doubt you will get where you want to go.
What's worse is that it actively encourages the underperforming members of the squad to sabotage the better performers and the better performers to deliberately refuse to help the underperformers.
Also a lot of people who aren't that good at their jobs (and are often aware of it) compensate by taking on simple and repetitive tasks that reduce the workload off the more highly skilled team members. Reduce these from the team and you end up with your highly skilled members quitting because they're sick of do
Re: (Score:2)
If the stack ranking had no politics, sure I'm all for it. I have never seen stack ranking not affected by politics. Including when at GE.
Have a clearly defined list of goals that can be measured so that anyone can do the ranking themselves and everyone gets the same result. However, have fun coming up w/ that list in any org that has a diverse set of goals.
Re: (Score:3)
If the stack ranking had no politics, sure I'm all for it. I have never seen stack ranking not affected by politics. Including when at GE.
Have a clearly defined list of goals that can be measured so that anyone can do the ranking themselves and everyone gets the same result. However, have fun coming up w/ that list in any org that has a diverse set of goals.
This is the core of the difference between theoretical stack ranking and practical stack ranking. Theoretical stack ranking assumes that there is a way to know and observe the true ranking. But that's the problem. Any estimate of the ranking is just an estimate. Sometimes that estimate is a best-effort attempt with some distribution of estimation error. However, many times, those estimating the rankings (either managers looking out for themselves or their groups, or individuals looking out for themselv
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be honest here, if you must lay off some people, stack ranking is the only way to make it seem fair. It's not the kind of insanity Jack Welch and Steve Balmer did, where they fired 10% of their workforce on a regular basis so they can replace them with new people.
Really, doesn't this just say more about the terrible lack of employee protections, rather than an effective way to run a business.
Use people until they can't be used any more, then discard them. It's little wonder Americans are finding it hard to care about doing a good job when their company treats them like chattel.