'OG Mark' Returns at Meta as Facebook Parent Gives Thousands of Staff Subpar Reviews (wsj.com) 81
Facebook parent Meta gave thousands of employees subpar ratings in a recently concluded round of performance reviews, a signal that more job cuts may be on the way, WSJ reported Friday, citing people familiar with the matter. From the report: The company also cut a bonus metric, the people said, one of several steps senior executives are taking after Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg declared 2023 would be a "year of efficiency." Meta's leadership expects the ratings to lead more employees to leave in the coming weeks, the people said. The company will consider another round of layoffs if not enough depart, the people said.
About 11,000 workers, or about 13% of employees at the company, were recently laid off. Meta managers gave approximately 10% of employees ratings indicating they are underperforming, the people said. That proportion wasn't unprecedented in the years before the pandemic. But Meta's employee count nearly doubled from 2019 to 2022, to 86,400, and about half its workers had never experienced a typical performance-review cycle at the company, several people familiar with the matter said. The recently wrapped performance reviews were seen as a return to form for Mr. Zuckerberg, who before the pandemic had developed a reputation for delivering direct feedback to workers, people familiar with the process said.
About 11,000 workers, or about 13% of employees at the company, were recently laid off. Meta managers gave approximately 10% of employees ratings indicating they are underperforming, the people said. That proportion wasn't unprecedented in the years before the pandemic. But Meta's employee count nearly doubled from 2019 to 2022, to 86,400, and about half its workers had never experienced a typical performance-review cycle at the company, several people familiar with the matter said. The recently wrapped performance reviews were seen as a return to form for Mr. Zuckerberg, who before the pandemic had developed a reputation for delivering direct feedback to workers, people familiar with the process said.
Survey: (Score:1)
Who knew what "OG" meant without looking it up?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I guess that it's time to promote ChatGPT to a senior management position at Facebook?
I mean, it can't do much worse than the managers for the VR department did last year.
Re: (Score:2)
I looked it up and still don't know Re:Survey: (Score:2)
I looked it up and I'm still confused. Is it a brand of clothing? Is it a musical artist? Is it a term for early "original gangsta" employees?
Someone help me out here.
Re: (Score:2)
I looked it up and I'm still confused. Is it a brand of clothing? Is it a musical artist? Is it a term for early "original gangsta" employees?
Someone help me out here.
FYI, yes, I believe OG is referring to Original Gangsta, as in how Mark Zuckerberg was in the the way back years, or old-school Mark.
Classic Hip-Hop Fan Here (Score:2)
I did! I'm a fan of classic, yep, there's a classic now, hip-hop/rap. That would be MC raps to DJ stylings upon the turntables...of the original gangsta variety. Actually that came a little later. Kind of hard to play records and rhythmically talk over them while being shot at.
The point of the matter is, that with this knowledge in hand, once you get two words into the summary, you can easily see the rest is farce.
Re: (Score:2)
"Original Gangster", right? Apparently Meta is weeding out all the rap fans.
Life isn't Lake Wobegon (Score:2)
It can't mathematically be true that all the children are above average [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They have much more flexibility with the contractors (and the contractors may cost them less as well due to lack of benefits). To get rid of a contractor, just cancel or don't renew their contract - little or no "severance" (at least in the case of non-renewal), much less chance of a discrimination lawsuit, and less public attention to the reduction in force via contractors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to get technically pedantic then the median is a type of average.
Re: (Score:2)
The meaning of "average" depends on context. References to "average income" are usually really about "median income", because mean income is skewed by a small number of extremely wealthy individuals. If you are talking about total ÷ (number of samples), you'd hest use "mean" to eliminate misinterpretation.
Carlin was no dummy. The context of the line makes it pretty clear he meant "median". After all, if he'd use "mean", people would have thought he was referring to folks with nasty dispositions.
Re: (Score:2)
That's median... But too late to correct George now!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you're firing people to hit a numerical target, then you don't know what your company actually needs to perform.
Re: (Score:1)
Tens of thousands of employees are doing busy work. They are generally good at their work, but the work is meaningless from a business perspective. Leadership doesn't know how to extract business value from the employees. Most (key) top leadership have only worked at Facebook/Meta and are products of their own echo chamber - they have no outside perspective.
Similar situation at Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Leadership doesn't know how to extract business value from the employees.
Yes. This is a problem with leadership, not with the employees. That should give you a sign about who should be cut.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what constructive dismissal [wikipedia.org] means at all. This is something like papering the file [thelitbot.com].
Re: (Score:2)
In boom times when a company and industry are growing and desperately trying to fill positions, there's often little value in giving accurate but poor reviews to those who are contributing more than they consume but who are marginal employees because doing so will generally make them less productive due to poor morale and they may even quit making your hiring shortfall even worse. These are employees who are generally trying hard and are dedicated but just don't have a strong enough dose of "the right stuff
Re: (Score:2)
If this logic doesn't offend you or make you want to punch someone in the face, you are a sociopath.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps ironically only a sociopath would feel a desire to "punch someone in the face" as a result of reading a logical description of reality. I guess it takes one to know one.
Perhaps you have a difficulty distinguishing between different types of relationships. Your employer is not your child, your spouse, or your dog and you are not your employer's child, spouse, or dog.
The relationship between an employee and employer is primarily a financial and service oriented relationship. It's much like the relatio
Two options, guess which one Zuck chose... (Score:4, Funny)
1.) Layoff people with a generous package and thank them for their time at the company costing the company hundreds of millions of dollars but a fraction of the CEO's personal wealth.
2.) Make your company so horrible and oppressive that your employees quit voluntarily, saving hundreds of millions of dollars but a fraction of the CEO's personal wealth.
Hmmmm, which one?
Re:Two options, guess which one Zuck chose... (Score:4, Insightful)
So what is the story? It's mostly spin.
Re: (Score:2)
Companies don't want to do the layoffs (Score:1, Interesting)
But the Federal Reserve wants blood. So everyone's trying to figure out the correct number of layoffs that'll make Jerome Powell happy and get him to stop raising interest rates.
Google the phrase "fire one million". Our gov't has b
Re: Companies don't want to do the layoffs (Score:2)
If companies want the fed to stop raising rates they can just update their prices to pre-pandemic levels. No need to cut jobs.
Let's not get too crazy (Score:2)
And of course there's always Union busting.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would any company do that? We've spent literal decades, if not longer, convinced that profit is above all. Morale? Pfft. Employee well-being? Pfft. All that matters is profit, and as a subset of profit, executive and investor bonuses. Lowering prices lowers profit in a measurable, instant way. Firing employees with supposedly kinder wording (layoffs) is a measurable, instant increase to profits. MBAs the world over would tell you which direction to go. It's a no brainer for those that see zero value in
Because when the interest rates drop (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they're gonna have to rehire all those people they fired, and that's expensive. It's also not free/cheap to fire them.
Why rehire them when they can automate the position away?
After all, the world still needs people to swing shovels.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of Amazon's warehouse situation is the constant churn of firing and rehiring the same people. Because they save having to ever give someone a raise just through retension, and they don't have to bother retraining someone that's worked there before. Trust. The MBA's have worked it out to where it's cheaper to fire and rehire than it is to retain, or they'd retain them.
Re: (Score:2)
Profit alone is not good enough. Profits as a % of revenue must grow each and every year. If you're not growing, you're shrinking!
Re: (Score:2)
This is true, however I think the interpretation is incorrect. Inflation is an equation which will balance itself one way or another. Without fed intervention then the cost of bread drives up to $20 a loaf.
Re: (Score:2)
We have plenty of wheat (Score:2)
I don't think Powell is ignorant of this fact. It's possible but it seems unlikely. So I think he's got ulterior motives. e.g. I think
Re: (Score:2)
Inflation can also be caused by rent-seeking/monopolistic or similar trust-like behaviors.
This is more true of "essentials", like food, shelter, water, medical care, transportation, energy, communications, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes this. There has been some upward pressure due to increased cost of fuel and scarcity (war in Ukraine) and supply chain issues (pandemic), but there has also been a significant amount of using the first two as a cover for price gouging.
Re: (Score:3)
There may be some nefarious motive as you say. I don't agree or disagree, simply because I don't see enough evidence for it.
But there is a larger picture that needs to evaluated in parallel to that.
The USA in the past three decades (what I personally remember) have had recessions every 8 or so years. During Bush Sr, then 1999/2000, then 2008.
Each had a different trigger, e.g. dot com implosion, or bad loans for houses.
But the cycle was usually handled by interest rate adjustment by central banks:
- When the
Re: (Score:3)
Well said, and no there is no collusion with a nefarious motive. People don't work that well together. Getting people to Mars would be quite easy if we had half that level of cooperation across such a large breath of the economy. Not to mention the level of Egos and Greed that needs to be put aside to achieve it.
We were long overdue for interest rate "normalization" near the start of Obama's Presidency. In 2010-11! 5%-6% is our "healthy" rate. But we had a "Great Recession" at the time and the Fed had
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care about "orange man bad" BS as if the statement somehow dismisses the argument or actions of the former President. The fact remains, Trump calling out the Fed in public, putting himself contradictory to their direction, and basically saying they should keep "interests low or else" did play into the Fed's decision making. The Feds literally had 3 good years to act on interest rates and they didn't.
Are you really going to argue that Trump has no blame because he couldn't keep his mouth shut about
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If you think Chairman Pow's efforts are all about inducing companies to layoff people, then you sure don't understand 1 bit about economics.
And if you don't understand 1 bit about economics you very likely work for one of those Wall Street mega-money corps.
Another take... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you lose enough battles, you have to start thinking it is the general, not the troops; that is the problem.
Re:Another take... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is the general risks getting fired, but the front-line soldiers risk getting killed.
The asymmetric risk problem creates organizations which cannot functionally achieve their purported goal. What Wall Street doesn't recognize is that all large organizations eventually fall apart from the inside; this has been happening since the tower of Babel. Cyclical layoffs are the surest sign that a company is no longer capable of realizing meaningful growth, and has moved to the phase of its existence where it begins to milk the goodwill of its customers and investors.
Low rating for Zuck (Score:4, Insightful)
Given the low rating Zuckerberg gets as CEO, hopefully he will leave as well.
ChatBot Performance Reviews (Score:1)
So let me get this straight (Score:5, Interesting)
They give you a bad review then expect you to just quit and if you don't quit they lay you off? Why would anyone quit? Wouldn't it be better to get a lay off and draw unemployment?
Re: (Score:1)
If you're fired "for cause" you don't get unemployment.
You're counting on another round of mass layoffs. But with performance reviews, that is the "cause" to avoid paying people severance and other benefits that are required to be paid when a company is just cutting costs.
And no, it doesn't really matter anyway. It's like a school's "permanent record." You move on to a better company.
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:5, Informative)
This is incorrect. Being terminated for performance is almost never For Cause. For Cause termination is for gross misconduct stuff like theft (of time or physical property), breaking the law, sleeping on the job, putting the company at grave risk due to negligence or terrible decision making, etc. In most states, it's often up to the company to define what For Cause termination means and relate it to the employees (typically through a handbook etc.) and then document and provide proof of the incidents that led to the employee's termination, but even then, it's ultimately up to each state's unemployment offices to make the pay or no pay determination.
In my entire career, have never seen an employee who was terminated for performance not receive unemployment if they applied for it -- even after the Dot-Com bubble, which makes this current round of layoffs look like a day at the beach. However, in the last five or so years, I have seen multiple instances of employees who were caught red-handed for time theft granted unemployment in very blue states, despite copious documentation and proof provided to the unemployment offices that they had in fact stolen time from their employer.
Re: So let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
When you make $200k/year, you're not super concerned with unemployment because it doesn't come anywhere near what you need to stay afloat.
Re: (Score:1)
I can think of several people off the top of my head that make that much, but still complain about living paycheck to paycheck. Bonus points when both members of a married couple have those jobs and still bitch about money while their BMWs are in the shop for service.
Yeah, we're all way too damn obsessed over performance.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I don't know how it works in the U.S.. However, in Canada, your severance package represents payment for a given period of time for which you are considered "employed" from the perspective of the Employment Insurance program.. It is considered ongoing income until it is exhausted. For instance, you may be paid "2 weeks per year of service." That means they aren't gifting you a lump sum... they are literally paying for those two week chunks, just up front. So if you're a 20 year veteran, and the severa
Re: (Score:2)
It is a warning: "If you got a substandard rating in your review, you WILL be laid off in the next round of downsizing -start looking for a new job now."
Probably is a lot of dead weight there (Score:3)
The take away from those viral "my life as a $FAANG_FIRM employee" TikTok videos show is these companies are full of dead weight who come to work, enjoy very expensive company perks and then spend a lot of time doing work of dubious value.
Meta has a workforce almost 86.5k large. By comparison, Gab with 10-20M users, has about 12-20. The number of superfluous make-work jobs at these firms is almost guaranteed to be crazy and their DEI obsession encourages them to find room where it's not needed for "diverse candidates."
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that TikTok isn't more real life than the other curated social media feeds. Right? You do know this. SMH.
It still points to an uncomfortable truth (Score:2)
The TikTok presents details we already know are true in a curated, SM way. Nothing in those videos was surprising in terms of the perks, office space, work culture, etc. Consider the fact that when Facebook bought Instagram, it had 13 employees.
That's it! 13!
Even with the modifications, scaling ops, etc. aside from moderators there's no way either Facebook or Instagram need 86.5k employees between them. Now that both platforms have a high level of integration (fr
Re: (Score:2)
"The TikTok presents details we already know are true in a curated, SM way"
Or, to put it another way, "TikTok cleverly reinforces my preconceived notions and therefore must be true."
Where does upper management get the idea (Score:3)
Where does management get the idea, its a good look for people who were previously told they were doing well / meeting expectation etc to get sub par reviews.
I have seen this at multiple organizations and am highly conscious about it as reviewer, both in terms of not inflating reviews in good corporate times, and not getting more picky in tougher times. I try to tell other mangers look:
You set expectations, external factors should change your appraisal of an individuals performance. If you gave some one a good q4 review, and they did what you asked and doing similar work at a similar rate they should be getting a good q1 review at least if their role hasnt changed. The pressure to cut back on performance bonus should be dealt with by upper management and they should do an across the board % reduction or something. if its about trying get certain less needed folks to leave you should just sack up and lay them off dissolving their position.
Fucking around with review results just signals to everyone your review process is not really objective, but rather arbitrary and probably driven by favoritism. Which we all know when it comes to professional positions, especially where there isnt other analogs in the same company (people in the same job role) it is a bit arbitrary. Even to the degree that is the case as a manager do you really think its good for you to put up a giant billboard that says - I don't know which of my people are truly valuable to the organization? What does that indicate about your value? If you are upper management do think people suddenly getting lower reviews for no clear reason makes them feel good about your compensation and advancement structure, do you think that makes good performers want to continue their careers with you?
Re: (Score:1)
external factors should change your appraisal
should have been
external factors should NOT change your appraisal
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost like companies are disingenuous with processes like peer reviews. Would you be surprised if other processes relating to staff are also a big fat lie? Bonuses, promotions, and hiring too.
Performance Reviews are Bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a middle-level manager at a fairly large company. I have 12 direct reports (all engineers). Every year, the senior leadership team "flows down" the outcome requirements for performance reviews. They tell us what percentage of people can be rated "excellent" and what percentage must be rated "below expectations."
In this most recent cycle, I was required to rate 4 of my engineers as "not meeting expectations," which means that I will be required to fire them in 6 months when they do not meet the requirements of the unachievable PIP that I am going to have to put them on.
Re: (Score:3)
PIP is the company's passive-aggressive way of telling an employee it's time to look for a new job.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. It stands for Paid Interview Prep. It means it's time to prepare for job interviews, because you'll be doing it soon.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. I'm stealing that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
therein lies the problem with these horse shit bell curve performance review requirements.
Re: Performance Reviews are Bullshit (Score:2)
Sports analogies. (Score:2)
Plan backfires (Score:3)
When I worked for Boeing, rumors of layoffs or just poor company performance caused the most competent employees to leave. Those with the highest probability of finding employment elsewhere. The lower performers hung on for dear life, as their most likely alternative was the local food bank.
SpaceX, Blue Origin and many other companies benefited greatly from this strategy.
This is a setup for layoffs (Score:2)
Back in the mid-nineties, I was working for Ameritech, and word went around, after the first year where my startup division burned through *real* money, that everyone would get a rating of 3 out of 5, unless your managers fought. (I got a 4).
And, of course, by the end of the second year, the division was shut down.
Highah (Score:2)
Zucherberg's Score? (Score:3)
OG in quotes doesn't stop it from being stupid (Score:2)
Just ditch the Metaverse. (Score:1)
Zuck's too old (Score:1)
Zuckerberg will turn 39 this year -- a full nine years older than the age he declared to be too old to work in his industry.
Perhaps it's time for The Zuck to hit the retirement home -- he's clearly gotten too old to do the job.