Meta Targets More 'Underperformers' in Mid-Year Reviews (businessinsider.com) 53
An anonymous reader shares a report: Meta is expanding the ranks of its lowest-rated employees in mid-year performance reviews, a move that could lead to more performance-based cuts. Meta is telling managers to put more employees in "Below Expectations", the lowest performance bucket during this year's mid-year performance reviews, according to a memo shared on Meta's internal forum on May 14, which was viewed by Business Insider. For teams of 150 or more, Meta wants managers to put 15-20% of employees in the bottom bucket compared to 12-15% last year.
The expanded range includes employees who have already left the company as part of "non-regrettable attrition", Meta's term for staff considered non-critical to operations, including those who resigned or were dismissed for underperformance. The mid-year performance review process is "an opportunity to make exit decisions", according to the memo. It added that "there will be no company-wide performance terminations, unlike earlier this year," and leaders are expected to manage the performance of their reports.
The expanded range includes employees who have already left the company as part of "non-regrettable attrition", Meta's term for staff considered non-critical to operations, including those who resigned or were dismissed for underperformance. The mid-year performance review process is "an opportunity to make exit decisions", according to the memo. It added that "there will be no company-wide performance terminations, unlike earlier this year," and leaders are expected to manage the performance of their reports.
Such corporate bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Giving someone a "Below Expectations" rating because upper management wants to hit numbers is such a crappy mind game. If everyone on your team is performing to the expectations you set out for them, but you need to reduce headcount, just rate them as they deserve and lay them off based on some other objective criteria, like seniority or cologne preference.
This feels like a corporate CYA move to avoid wrongful termination suits by lying about staff performance. I wonder if leaks like this could be used for a lawsuit instead...
Re: Such corporate bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Such corporate bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
just rate them as they deserve
I've seen where 11 folks who earned "Exceeds expectations" get those evaluations, because without their damned fine performance the place would have gone kaput - right up until it goes in to HR, when the manager is told they get 1 "exceeds", all but 5 "meets", and the last 5 "does not meet". It's not a rating, it's a roulette wheel.
This feels like a corporate CYA move to avoid wrongful termination suits by lying about staff performance.
You're much too smart to be that cynically correct. Out loud, anyway. Yes, you're 100% correct. This is exactly what it is.
I wonder if leaks like this could be used for a lawsuit instead...
When management throws around a phrase like "non-regrettable attrition" you can bet they have their lawyers primed to that sort of eventuality.
Re: (Score:3)
Truth. This has happened to me a few times and my manager(s) either told me HR was making them do it, or made up some excuse like "oh but that one time I had to remind you to do something you should have known to do without being reminded.." which puts me in "meets most" instead of "meets" and "exceeds"
HR/upper mgmt gets the evaluations and the merit increase requests and just says "nope". Managers are only allowed 1 "exceeds" across 3 teams or so.
The reason there's not a lot of regrettable attrition is bec
Re: (Score:3)
The term "expectations" is meaningless... If someone performed well last year then you'll expect them to perform well again. By contrast if someone is known to be useless then your expectations of them are low so it's not hard for them to be exceeded.
Plus if you're screening your applicants properly when you hire them, then you shouldn't usually have poor performers, and if some happen to slip through you usually get rid of them during the probation phase, long before any annual reviews.
Moving Goalposts (Score:5, Insightful)
"Here are your goals for the year"
Review time: "you didn't complete these goals I didn't tell you about! "
Also, forcing a curve is just plain wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, forcing a curve is just plain wrong.
Well, yes and no. On the one hand cycling through your under performers to see if you can find someone better from the job market can be good for the business as it always ensures you have the best talent available. ... right until people know about it.
After people find out the practice it will usually result in who can do the best schmoozing, who is the best at back stabbing, and who still puts up with this kind of bullshit and doesn't quit and go to a better company.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, forcing a curve is just plain wrong.
Well, yes and no. On the one hand cycling through your under performers ...
On the other hand, they aren't really under performers if the performance curve is fiction; they've just been made to look that way so they can be fired. The story here is that managers are required to give a certain percentage of employees low marks, not (necessarily) because they earned it, for the explicit purpose of getting rid of them. Also allows the company to skip raises and hire new people at current or possibly lower salaries. New people will have to be trained, repeating that expense incurred
Re: (Score:1)
underperformers (Score:3)
Math problem:
The bottom 50% is fired each year. How many years before no one works there?
Re: (Score:2)
Math problem:
The bottom 50% is fired each year. How many years before no one works there?
The worst years are the ones where headcount is an uneven number.
Re: (Score:2)
Math problem:
The bottom 50% is fired each year. How many years before no one works there?
The worst years are the ones where headcount is an uneven number.
Do they cut someone in half and fire the half?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How many years before no one works there?
It will take until the majority of people realize most social media is harmful to their mental health.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I strongly believe that social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram and Twitter need to be banned.
Now, hear me out before you go all "freedom of expression" on me.
I don't advocate banning social media. I advocate banning the business model that relies on ads plus "engagement" to earn money, because algorithms that maximize for that are incredibly harmful to both our mental health and to our democracy.
In my opinion, any social media platform with more than 5 million users (say) must be forced to foll
Re: (Score:1)
Thank god you are not in charge.
Here are my rules for social media:
1). Use it if you want.
2). Don't use it if you don't want.
Re: (Score:2)
Social media is highly addictive and harmful. You might as well have written:
Here are my rules for fentanyl:
1) Use it if you want.
2) Don't use it if you don't want.
Re: (Score:1)
I agree with those rules, and I definitely to choose to use it. It helps some with chronic pain. I wear two patches that have to be changed every 3 days. One is 25 micrograms, the other is 12, for a total of 37 micrograms.
Re: (Score:2)
You know I was talking about street drugs, not something given under the supervision of medical professionals.
I'd be OK with social media being administered only under the supervision of medical professionals.
Re: (Score:1)
You know I was talking about street drugs, not something given under the supervision of medical professionals.
I'd be OK with social media being administered only under the supervision of medical professionals.
I'm ok with fentanyl or social media being used at the pleasure of the user.
I'm also OK with the govt letting you overdose from either one.
Re: underperformers (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Math problem:
The bottom 50% is fired each year. How many years before no one works there?
Infinity, because firing people doesn't mean not replacing them. That said when people get wind of this practice the true talent typically leaves so you only end up with mediocre masochists who work for you, great if you have an Onlyfans page, but not so good beyond that.
Re: underperformers (Score:2)
Churn is the result. And if your HR and hiring process doesn't have reliable metrics, the replacements you hire might not be any better than the ones you cut. And the average performance trends downward as a result.
Stack-rank forever! (Score:5, Insightful)
It addresses Zuckersmirk's emotional needs nicely.
Start with the most impactful low performer (Score:5, Insightful)
E.g., the one who directed Meta to blow $45B on obviously stupid and useless VR.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this, i doubt any other low performance has caused $45B of losses.
Gamed - toxic culture in many groups (Score:3)
Often people are in the targeted group for being in the wrong caste.
Most managers have some idea this is going on but any manager who didn't play the game quickly finds themselves a target. It creates a work place of zero loyalty. As soon as someone stumbles, regardless of how good they were in the past many people start treating them like a pariah. No sense forming alliances with someone who will be fired soon.
Highlander (Score:3)
How to make companies leaner, faster, more profitable? Why, simply fire the low-performers every year! What remain are the high performers.
But don't risk rehiring low performers. Instead, rely on AI to replace the people you sacked. Then go sack some more - you always can do better. Stack, rank and yank! Rinse bloodstains and repeat.
As your employee headcount gets smaller so does your wage bill. But lo, what superstars remain! What cold blooded killers! Each one capable of maintaining a thousand spreadsheets. Of selling container-ships of ice to the Inuit. Of gutting entire divisions in a day. Of skillfully pitting one AI chatbot against another.
So eventually, there two employees left. You and that other guy. But don't stop Highlander. There can only be one!
Then, there's you. You're the company. "L'entreprise, c'est moi".
Well, technically you're not the company: there's no one to keep you company. You're the singularity.
Isn't Zuck the lowest performer? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but he owns 13.5% of Facebook and has more than 50% of the voting power. Good luck getting Zuck to vote himself out of power.
Re: Isn't Zuck the lowest performer? (Score:2)
So not a meritocracy, got it.
Neutron Jack Strikes Again (Score:3)
The origin of this practice is "stack ranking" introduced by "Neutron Jack" Welch at GE who pumped up the value of the stock to record levels by financial shenanigans and merciless staff cuts. It reached a high level in 2000, but then lost 90% of its value over the next 20 years as those financial gimmicks and burnt seed corn had their inevitable effects.
Zuck wants to do Neutron Jack one better. Jack only had 10% of his employees cut every year. Zuck wants to up that to 20%.
Adding Meta to the list (Score:2)
... of companies I would never accept a job offer from for any reason. Do they care about their corporate image at all?
How to get the best employees (Score:2)
Hire random people
Fire the underperformers
Repeat
With that secret algorithm, you will eventually have only the best of the best employees in your company. ...
I only wonder, why no good people are applying for jobs with us anymore
Forced ranking devastates high performing teams (Score:1)
Several years ago, one company took the best people from multiple teams and put them on a super team.. and then still retained forced ranking.
Those best people left. And for bonus points, everyone on their old teams basically moved up a ranking with at least one average performer moving up to "above average" performance ratings.
Stacked ranking sucks.
Don't give your loyalty to any company that uses stacked ranking.
Unemployment system in America (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Speed-working! It's like speed-dating.
Periodic stack ranking (Score:2)
Prune the bottom 10% each and every year without replacing them with someone else and you'll eventually be pruning employees who are so stellar, that they'll start their own companies.
At some point pruning wont be good enough. You'll either have to pay them not to work for a few years, or march the employee out and execute them.
Guess which one companies would prefer.
Re: (Score:2)
This seems illegal (Score:2)
The employees take the performance review hit because of management's games,
so there will be false statements in upcoming SEC filings per the workforce.
It makes the managers look bad for having many underperformers, like it's their fault, too.
Meta workers need to form a good union.
Then again (Score:2)
English language (Score:2)
Do these people know what "expectations" means? First off, that means about 1 or 2 workers of every manager performs below their expectations .. what does that say about their manager's ability to judge their own workers? It's more likely that entire teams are not producing useful output. That there are teams wherein everyone is spinning wheel. Let me clarify what I mean, it's like a state government finding out that 1 in 5 people in a county are criminals. So then they force every neighborhood to produce t
Good thing (Score:2)
Stack ranking is how you destroy a company from within, putting all your staff into a perpetual game of survivor is going to promote backstabbing at worst and information hoarding self-preservation in the least.
The sooner this Meta-stasis is gone from the world, the better for everyone.