Comments
warp-speed-dammit t1_iwtff3k wrote
Amazon has a notoriously toxic work culture, ranking system, and reputation in the software industry.
BurnItFromOrbit t1_iwtrzye wrote
As an ex-Amazonian, i have witnessed this.
There software divisions are probably the worst place to work. They opened up a new site in Vancouver at the harbour center a while back as they drained all the talent pools elsewhere.
Oscarcharliezulu t1_iwu5a21 wrote
I turned down an offer to come interview based on what friends working there told me.
SomeGuyNamedPaul t1_iwue77y wrote
In my experience having a few years working in Amazon is actually a negative on your resume. 6 months is possibly positive, but if they're there for like 4 years something's probably wrong with the candidate.
university_dude t1_iwuffmt wrote
What would be wrong with a candidate for working at Amazon as a software engineer?
nylockian t1_iwufzmk wrote
Nothing. You really think this person does any FAANG hiring?
SomeGuyNamedPaul t1_iwuo67r wrote
My primary concern is that they'll bring Amazon's toxic corporate culture with them. Otherwise with most places you wonder why they left, but with Amazon you wonder why they stayed. Yes, I get it that they had a vesting structure that made sticking around really attractive from a financial perspective, but have you seen Amazon workers? Everywhere has happy workers and hollowed out husks and In my personal observations Amazon's ratio isn't good. We've had folks leave for Amazon and then come right back after they realize the mistake they've made.
Mind you, I'm not saying all of the Amazon tech workers are in a horrible place either. Some people can thrive anywhere, some don't have a lot to compare against and have no idea what the rest of the world is like, and some might be under amazing managers who shield their crew. In any case you still interview them, they might suck they might be great, they might be super thankful for rescuing them from a horrid place.
The hardest part about interviewing people is that within the span of 45 minutes it's easy to find reasons to say no and harder to be reasonably confident they'll be a great fit.
icenoid t1_iwug7p1 wrote
Former amazon employees tend to bring their shitty work culture with them wherever they land. If you are at Amazon for a couple of years, you tend to know how bad the culture is there, but if you are there for 4 or more, you tend to basically screw up anywhere you land.
Fancy-Respect8729 t1_iwu5lkb wrote
How about fuck toxic Amazon off. Plenty of other companies and jobs.
Luckbaldy t1_iwu8n6y wrote
Exactly this. The retaliation opportunity here is ripe. If you aren’t good at your job because you don’t possess the appropriate skills, it’s better to find a less stressful alternative. This seems to be a really toxic filter for human capital.
TheDeadlyCat t1_iwv6y4a wrote
Reading the headline and about what this was I recognized that I was once forced to do that for my team.
I refused following that order on the grounds that the logic behind it was flawed. There isn’t such a thing as a guaranteed universally bad worker in a team. And you wouldn’t want to promote a culture that works with that.
My boss thought about it, also forced to do that with me and agreed.
We later learned his boss randomly assigned people to the bell curve to mitigate this. We were not let go but some of my team quit.
Now I know they picked this method up and here I am years later going „oh shit!“.
I am no longer with that company. They let everyone go there. Jumped the bandwagon later but before that happened.
diogenes_bull t1_iwtd75o wrote
Eh. Sometimes your employees just suck
nylockian t1_iwug7o5 wrote
It's pretty damn hard to get a job a Amazon. Your comment reminds me of the scallenge.
Other companies have all the employees that suck.
evmarshall t1_iwt3jlb wrote
But what about stack ranking the managers?
ElGuano t1_iwtwhsg wrote
The managers have managers, who were probably told to do the same.
Humble-Letter-6424 t1_iwuskmk wrote
It’s the end of the year, so this is just the yearly push to complete end of year reviews and succession plans… nothing to see here.
10% will be pushed out by Feb.
GeologistUnfair t1_iwvrkia wrote
It's still interesting, not everybody recognizes this is how the process works and it is pretty ridiculous. It's just absolutely absurd the way this country devalues it's working class, and gives so much power to centers of private Capital to control congress, treat workers like s**.
Humble-Letter-6424 t1_iwwsdqi wrote
Look I don’t disagree with you and understand that most would feel that it’s impersonal, and I would rather repurpose the folks to roles that fit them better, but you can’t disagree in saying that Atleast 5-10% of your coworkers are anchors and probably are more toxic rather than helpful to getting things done.
red286 t1_iww3ylg wrote
Gotta make room for the new hires from Twitter.
LoveThieves t1_iwvqxkv wrote
I remember this story of 10 self-important managers on a boat telling how to get the 1 worker to row efficiently.
The successful company has 10 people rowing the boat with 1 competent manager and wins the race.
I guess it's that time Amazon fires all the middle management. reminds of Office Space LOL
altcastle t1_iwtoy4q wrote
Hmmm, that sounds like a low rank thought. Please report to HR.
WROL t1_iwv2grd wrote
I was thinking “not a team player”
altcastle t1_iwv55sf wrote
Thinking? Please report to HR!
VacuousWaffle t1_ix38v11 wrote
"Lacks a technical mindset"
Oscarcharliezulu t1_iwu5gcz wrote
The real problem - and I’ve experienced this in a previous job - that they get rid of a lot of people but the workload doesn’t go down so those who are left are forced to do more for the same pay. You get stressed and overworked but they expect you to be grateful. I felt somehow unlucky that they didn’t get rid of me - I’d rather have gotten the package to leave, taken a month or two off and gotten another job.
S_NJ_Guy t1_iwu6x7x wrote
What you described, is performance punishment.
FantasticBarnacle241 t1_iwupffu wrote
Reward good work with more work!
S_NJ_Guy t1_iwuzhlt wrote
Exactly. There's an old saying, if you need something done, give it to a busy person. That was me, always busy and given more work.
thruster_fuel69 t1_iwudbo0 wrote
Today's hot new bdsm trend!
[deleted] t1_iwuff20 wrote
[deleted]
BexKix t1_iwupquq wrote
I was working at Cat when they underwent several major cuts in ‘08 and ‘16. Hubby’s department saw 50% cuts, the survivor’s guilt is real when they’re that big. Even if you still have a job, it is much different than before.
My area wasn’t as bad… but still had to set personal limits and stick to them for hours worked. If it wasn’t important it wasn’t going to get done became a harsh truth. Perfect and well-done went out the window, “good enough” became the bar.
My previous job went through all that and had the “be grateful” attitude after months of wondering if you had a job. I left the company, I can’t endorse that. As my mentor said, you need to be all in or “all-out” there’s not a lot of in-between if you’re honest with yourself.
Good luck. Downsizing sucks, I’ve seen it 4 times now in my career. It’s definitely a lot more often than when I started, business cycles are faster.
SidewaysFancyPrance t1_iwv1y9i wrote
Yeah, the problem is when bosses make the cuts but then the unspoken expectation is that you as the worker have to sacrifice and buckle down to compensate for it, but the boss gets the bonus for saving the company money.
When a company actually cuts work as they cut employees and just acknowledge that things will have to drop off, I respect that. That's leadership making hard decisions. Firing people and telling everyone else to work harder to meet the same goals is not making a hard decision, it's being an asshole.
Oscarcharliezulu t1_ix2c5ga wrote
That’s exactly why I’m not sorry for companies - And especially the managers, when their staff desert them.
BexKix t1_ix3lp0r wrote
Managers are screwed. Hubby is a manger and when it comes to hiring and firing he only decides the who, not the “how many.” He can petition and call out facts and figures, but ultimately his hands are tied.
Upper management - who are clueless what individuals do day to day - are the assholes here.
[deleted] t1_ix7u8xh wrote
[removed]
SomeGuyNamedPaul t1_iwudv9x wrote
There's no limit to the amount of work I can't get to.
reddiots-lmao t1_iwuq0u2 wrote
And now there is a fresh batch of low performers to fire! Employees hate this one trick
Hardcorners t1_iwu96bu wrote
Trust me, they’ll do that too.
ActualAdvice t1_iwuc5mh wrote
Managers have managers.
Wackipaki t1_iwum2vx wrote
We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing.
MossytheMagnificent t1_iwuihy5 wrote
That happens after they force all the managers to lay of their teams.
dax2001 t1_iwtumlv wrote
They can do this only in an uncivilised countries.
WomenTrucksAndJesus t1_iwsx4cg wrote
"I have a *great* idea! Count how many lines of code they wrote!!! That should work!" - Musk's rat.
PoissonPen t1_iwu5qa5 wrote
Like a home construction company firing people based on how few nails they've hammered.
Who needs an architect? Load bearing schmode bearing.
Foreman? How about Oneman?
Truetree9999 OP t1_iwt3jt9 wrote
lol PIP under Elon
cpuphry t1_iwswpno wrote
what would happen if everyone went on fmla cause of stress and anxiety from all this?
Truetree9999 OP t1_iwt3p3z wrote
fmla is a good idea actually
nylockian t1_iwugauy wrote
Its unpaid leave so company wouldnt care so much.
Truetree9999 OP t1_iwujybx wrote
In Washington state/Amazon HQ, its paid
cpuphry t1_iwurghz wrote
yea exactly. employees should use the tools they have and this is a tool to help in this situation.
Truetree9999 OP t1_iwyvuo6 wrote
Yea I dont see it mentioned much when people talk about layoffs
nylockian t1_iwvn3t7 wrote
Interesting - never knew any states had that.
Truetree9999 OP t1_iwsk5lw wrote
Anyone know how to bypass the paywall here?
Familiar-Turtle t1_iwsl4pk wrote
DopeFlavorRum t1_iwtid8m wrote
I really thought this was a troll reply.
[deleted] t1_iwwf9hc wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwslj8b wrote
[removed]
Eleventy_72 t1_iwtabwv wrote
Edge has Immersive Reader (an icon on the right next to the URL that looks like a book) that has bypassed every paywall that I have encountered so far.
MewSixUwU t1_iwsowlf wrote
theres an extension called bypasspaywall
[deleted] t1_iwtiw0v wrote
[removed]
Be_the_Link t1_iwsxzq8 wrote
I was a director at a large, older, software company in California. At the time we had about 18k global employees. Times got tough and they asked us to have our teams stack rank so that's what we did. One of my direct reports was pregnant with twins, but without a doubt the poorest performing member of my organization. My team had lots of visibility upwards so there was no hiding it. Thinking purely objectively I really had no choice, but the human in me still feels terrible about that. The VPs would scrutinize the lists and had a good sense of their teams, so you really have no choice but to be objective. It's rough. Rougher, of course, for that poor woman. FWIW her husband has a successful career so at least I knew she wouldn't be destitute.
StuckAFtherInHisCap t1_iwtmsc5 wrote
This is the secret, lonely truth of being a manager. You occasionally have to make tough calls like this, and few people will have sympathy for you. But it’s essential work in any organization.
kingkeelay t1_iwuyb7l wrote
I know it makes you feel better, but her husbands career should have fuck all to do with your decision. The fact that you even mention it shows you were biased in your decision making to let her go.
WinterStar38655 t1_iwwfioi wrote
Her being a pregnant woman should also have fuck all to do with the decision.
The commenter literally states that she was objectively the worst performer.
kingkeelay t1_iwxrgte wrote
Doesn’t sound very objective when the comment is sprinkled with more biased observations than objective facts about her performance.
Be_the_Link t1_ixf5kxw wrote
It was not my decision. You are the biased one.
OpenMathematician602 t1_iwtybsd wrote
Pregnant with twins, you monster. How do you sleep at nights?
Be_the_Link t1_iwubqa6 wrote
Around that period of time, not very much!
Difficult_Spinach504 t1_iwukg2q wrote
Maybe cut wages from the top and save the people that need jobs to survive
Truetree9999 OP t1_iwumc4f wrote
Lol that will never happen
Consistent_Jacket892 t1_iwt05vd wrote
Hi! I don’t like you so……….
kadathsc t1_iwutv2x wrote
I love that Amazon looks at the dumpster fire that is Twitter and thinks: “Yeah, we need to get into that action.”
Sufficient_Series154 t1_iwsqrfb wrote
Ummm.... thats what managers do. As an exec for a large financial services corp I had to do this annually.
Happens everywhere, why is this news?
be0wulfe t1_iwst1tt wrote
Because stack ranking is supposed to be dead as a doornail, but Amazon keeps hanging on to it
CobraPony67 t1_iwt2w7k wrote
Yes. It is like having the NBA dream team but you stack rank them and the lowest have to go even though they are all great.
CappinPeanut t1_iwuk49r wrote
If they need to trim fat and reduce their headcount, is there a better way than stack ranking? If you had to cut players from the dream team, you’re certainly not going to cut MJ.
tlsr t1_iwuy6yn wrote
I worked at a company that does this, year round, regardless of environment -- through good times and bad.
They are arrogant about why too: they believe there is always someone better than what they have and that someone will always want to work for them (they never explain why this super-hero doesn't currently work for them).
Ironically, this super-hero that they get to join the company is now a potential low performer as well. The circualr logic to this process is stunning.
CappinPeanut t1_iwuz1et wrote
Yea, my company used to do this year round. It was a horrific and toxic environment. It didn’t last long at all.
But, announcing layoffs and asking managers to rank everyone is a different animal. Performance based cost cutting seems to make the most sense and ranking everyone worst to best is the way to do that.
It sucks any time a company does layoffs, but it’s much better as a one off exercise than as a yearly practice, that’s for sure.
[deleted] t1_iwvf1nv wrote
[removed]
ginbear t1_iwukfwn wrote
Christian Laettner did suck though.
hezeus t1_iwsz5rw wrote
Hate to break it to you but most big companies have a flavor of this despite what it’s called.
be0wulfe t1_iwt2nqi wrote
Fully aware. A significant portion have moved away from it.
frolie0 t1_iwt4mgf wrote
They have not. At least the 4 I've worked at. I know others at other large companies too and everyone has some form of performance reviews where ratings are applied. Even the ones thst have softened the ratings system still have a poor performer designation.
No company is immune to poor performing employees and any halfway decent manager is going to push out their low performers.
SlowMotionPanic t1_iwtax9s wrote
Huge difference between stacked/forced ranking and performance reviews.
Stacked ranking is when employees are forced into arbitrary boxes and then the company cuts a certain category loose by termination. Managers will be will told “your team has 10 people, you MUST review and rank someone as a 1 then fire them.” The manager has little choice. Some companies offer leeway if teams are very small, but others like Amazon are cut throat because they haven’t lost massive class action lawsuits from their employees yet like GE and Microsoft did.
Amazon is being very transparent in what they are doing here. They aren’t doing performance reviews. They are cooking the books to cut an arbitrary number of people for performance issues because it sounds better than I ranked layoffs. In this case, they have just instructed managers to forced rank everyone they want laid off into the bottom tier.
Hence forced distribution.
Edit: a key component of forced distribution is that you can technically meet or exceed your company demands and still rank in the bottom tier because company policy forces someone to be there. So a team of high performers who all exceed will have an arbitrary percentage ranked as not meets or equivalent.
This really happens. Companies really get sued. Although probably not in this environment considering corpos have well and truly captured the courts.
frolie0 t1_iwtef3b wrote
Amazon literally uses a performance system like I described. What's described in the article may be something happening in a specific team, but Amazon uses a company wide performance rating scale.
PleasantWay7 t1_iwtfuli wrote
No they don’t. At most companies, if your team of 4 people are excellent you rank them as such.
At Amazon one must be marked as not performing m.
MarionberryIcy5149 t1_iwtnpm3 wrote
Nope - curve applies to orgs of at least 50. A team of 4 would not be required to have one low performer.
frolie0 t1_iwuajgs wrote
I literally work at Amazon in corporate. You are wrong.
Truetree9999 OP t1_iwuk548 wrote
Yea that's why I was surprised by this article
I haven't noticed the use of stack rankings in my org in my time here
be0wulfe t1_iwt9at6 wrote
There's a difference between measuring performance and stack ranking.
OpenMathematician602 t1_iwtxwov wrote
Is that why you’ve worked at 4?
frolie0 t1_iwualm4 wrote
Found the teenager.
hezeus t1_iwtanu4 wrote
What’s a significant portion? Which companies?
drysart t1_iwu19z4 wrote
Stack ranking was always intended to be used when a company needs to slim down its workforce and wants to make sure it gets rid of the lowest performers; but the business world cargo-culted it into being used for regular performance reviews when lowering headcount wasn't the goal, a task which it is absolutely awful for.
Business is in the middle of waking up and deciding it's worthless as a general evaluation system; but it's still very good at its intended purpose, and that's what Amazon appears to be using it for here.
jwizzle444 t1_iwt4oey wrote
It’s very active and alive. Never stopped.
RunninADorito t1_iwt6ciy wrote
I can't think of a tech company that doesn't do this.
Temby t1_iwtl78q wrote
Microsoft removed it in 2013. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303460004579193951987616572.
It created an infamously toxic culture of people and teams withholding information from each other, and working against each other so they would be ranked comparatively higher.
[deleted] t1_iwtpofn wrote
[deleted]
Temby t1_iwtrwx6 wrote
Thanks, the downvotes are weird. It's not like it's a subjective opinion, it's a thing that happened. I worked for EDS, which was similar and had its own set of culture problems.
Truetree9999 OP t1_iwukbpm wrote
EDS?
Temby t1_iwump8d wrote
Electronic Data Systems. It was an large international IT provider based out of Texas, and founded by Ross Perot who tried to run for president. Unfortunately EDS was gobbled up by HP in 2009.
Truetree9999 OP t1_iwywbf4 wrote
Yea weird I did a Google search for "EDC" and none of this came up
"EDC company" worked though
Temby t1_iwyxg1t wrote
Truetree9999 OP t1_iwyxt96 wrote
Yea sorry I meant EDS
If you google EDS, that wikipedia entry doesnt up in the initial results
Temby t1_iwyy8x9 wrote
All good :) To be fair to google, it hasn't existed since 2009.
HP bought it and soon rebranded it to HP Enterprise services (HPE). Then I think HP sold it off as DXC.
EDS were a behemoth of a tech company in the day, owned a bunch of private aircraft. They ran into some big financial turmoil, got a new CEO who started turning things around before it got bought out by HP in what is considered one of the biggest blunders in tech history. Bit of a rollercoaster ride for the company.
Truetree9999 OP t1_iwyye4l wrote
Yea this is weird but I'm trying to improve my searching skills
Temby t1_iwyz48f wrote
In my earlier post I mentioned Ross Perot and Texas in relation to EDS. If you Google:
EDS Ross Perot
or
EDS Texas
You should get that wiki article as the top result also!
Truetree9999 OP t1_iwyzo0s wrote
Mannn I should have added Ross Perot to the search :(
Stuff like this helps for work
Temby t1_iwyzxuw wrote
This is how we learn! As an IT professional I would often joke with people that my job was being a professional googler... You'll get the hang of it.
Truetree9999 OP t1_iwz04dm wrote
That's what I realized too but there isnt any training on this, is there?
Just a lot of practice
Temby t1_iwz0qxn wrote
I'm not sure if there's training, it's just something I picked up over too many years on the internet.
At the most basic level, you want to use all relevant key words. Lets say you needed find what year the Barcelona Olympics was held. You wouldn't just google "Olympics", you could google both words. Maybe you would even google "Barcelona Olympics Year".
Now lets say you needed to know what year the movie "Taxi Driver" was released. What would you search for?
Truetree9999 OP t1_iwz12sw wrote
"Taxi Driver movie release year" ?
Temby t1_iwz1gaf wrote
>Taxi Driver movie release year
I copy/pasted that into Google and it told me the year, so I'd say that's perfect :)
​
So besides throwing key words at google, here's a few more advanced points.
Firstly, quotes. There is a difference between Googling
Taxi Driver
and
"Taxi Driver"
When you put quotes around a word of a phrase, Google will only return that EXACT match. If you don't use quotes, Google will often try to substitute words with other words of a similar meaning. So use quotes when you know exactly what you want, or you have an exact phrase you want to match!
​
Secondly, you can use the word "OR" to allow Google to use multiple different words. So you could Google:
"Chocolate OR Vanilla" cake
And it will return you both results for chocolate cake and vanilla cake.
Truetree9999 OP t1_iwz1nrm wrote
Yup do you use AWS?
Theres a lot of this stuff w AWS cloudwatch that I do for work
Temby t1_iwz2qh1 wrote
Sadly not, AWS has the largest market share and is great to know, but I worked for large corporate and government clients where Azure was the only technology they used.
FYI, using quotes is very useful when you have an error message. 99% of the time you want to search for the 'exact' error and you don't want Google to give you any partial/unrelated matches.
Tip 3: Google's date filter. Lets say a recent vendor hotfix broke something. Filter your google results to the last week or month. With the amount of buggy patches MS release, that one came in handy sometimes.
Peralton t1_iwtv112 wrote
Teams would also hire people just to have someone to sacrifice at a later date to keep the rest of the team.
slow_connection t1_iwsvor3 wrote
Old companies do this but in startups and the tech world it's considered horrendous practice. Plenty of research to back it up.
Objective-Throat-614 t1_iwswzmx wrote
Maybe but Amazon has known to always do this.
slow_connection t1_iwsxk43 wrote
Sounds like Amazon
Objective-Throat-614 t1_iwta203 wrote
Yeah if you check on Blind, they PIP 5-10% of low performers every year and have to work a ton. They do get paid well though
EarendilStar t1_iwtc1kg wrote
I knew they did, but didn’t know they still do.
Ameren t1_iwstqxj wrote
Really? I've never heard of stack ranking at FFRDCs or defense contactors, for instance. It seems really risky to push people out the door en masse like that given it'd invite recruitment from foreign adversaries.
Just to name one example, of course. I'm sure folks from other industries can weigh in.
Fynn_the_Finger t1_iwsvbp7 wrote
I mean, I wouldn't work any place that required me to stack rank my team. Some jackoff above me would eventually come in and play corporate "hero" and go Jack Welch. I get rid of people who are holding my team back, if everyone is doing a good job, firing people will hurt my team, not help it.
We do software development. I've roughly 20 developers on my team. They're all awesome, and hard to replace. I let two people go over the last year, one just didn't have the skills and wasn't pulling his weight, the other was an abusive asshole who was negatively impacting team morale. We get rid of people on the merits of their behavior, not some arbitrary ranking.
deathdefyingrob1344 t1_iwsxqoe wrote
Same where I work. If you suck at your job you suck at your job and need to find something better suited. When you have a good team why make some arbitrary ranking system and fuck over a good team. Seems shitty
VenicePlaya t1_iwt7dwn wrote
Wouldn’t those 2 employees be at the bottom of the rank? Seems like the same outcome.
Peralton t1_iwtvj0m wrote
Once the inexperienced employees are gone, there's more firings to come. With stack ranking, there's a regular culling of the teams. So at x date one of the good employees will have to be let go in the name of stack ranking.
southern_dreams t1_iwtbpuk wrote
because we aren’t morons and don’t do stack ranking
justsomeoneSILLY t1_iwuozo6 wrote
Because it is wrong to harm people, and actions like this can devastate the real lives of people and children. As an exec at a large financial services company, why did you fail every year to figure out how many people you actually needed? Your failure caused harm. You were rewarded for that failure. Good fucking luck in whatever happens in the next life. Woof.
Nemesis_Ghost t1_iwswbz2 wrote
It's news b/c tech companies doing it recently as a precursor towards layoffs. I know my area did it recently with our contract employees b/c we got our funding cut. As long as we had funding we were hiring more & rarely got rid of anybody, even crappy employees simply b/c they could at least do enough to justify their pay. But once we had to reduce team size or number of teams, stack ranking came out & the bottom rungs got cut.
[deleted] t1_iwsrj7z wrote
[deleted]
pohl t1_iwu49nv wrote
Because Wall Street needs to see the headline so the stock will stop sliding. Duh.
carst07 t1_iwswcig wrote
Agreed, not news
Hardcorners t1_iwub2sc wrote
The lowest performers aren’t the problem; toxic staff are.
Spartycus t1_iwv3p2n wrote
If true, Amazon culture is about to be about silos of information where no one collaborates (if it’s not already that way). Stack ranking incentivizes this behavior because you know that at the end of the year the thing that matters is to not be on the bottom of the list. One could do that with hard work, but it works in reverse as well. Why help your coworkers when withholding information protects your own ranking?
NorthOaklandGuy t1_iwvoxgj wrote
Pretty sure all big tech companies are colluding right now. The plan is to “over-fire”, basically layoff more people than they need to. This will actually help bring down inflation because tech workers are so highly paid. When it comes time to ramp back up tech companies are going to use their newly created leverage to require new hires to work in the office. They might still offer hybrid work, but 100% remote will be rare.
Basically, the ruling elite want to cool inflation while helping the value of their commercial real estate recover (by doing away with WFH). Laying off a bunch of techies making $150-400k/yr is quick way to accomplish those goals.
Truetree9999 OP t1_iwyvzf3 wrote
"This will actually help bring down inflation because tech workers are so highly paid"
Wait sorry can you elaborate on the link between highly paid tech workers and inflation?
I agree tech workers are highly paid but I'm not seeing the connection with inflation
Sniffy4 t1_iwt6r2k wrote
'low performer' is always relative to the bar mgmt sets. if mgmt sets it insanely high so only people checking work status 13 hours a day and doing work at 2am Sunday get good ratings and everyone else is told they need to 'improve', the problem is mgmt and not the workers.
Valendr0s t1_iwtfkeg wrote
Laying off your workers is so hot right now
CappinPeanut t1_iwukw7h wrote
You’d be surprised by how many people these companies hired during the pandemic. They bloated up big time.
red286 t1_iww4srj wrote
Not to mention there's an awful lot of talented software engineers looking for work right about now thanks to Mr. Musk. Excellent time to cycle out the dead weight.
sigmabody t1_iwvfmd6 wrote
It's strange to me that Amazon would seemingly (based on the article) feel the need to stack rank, and put employees in positions where they are either encouraged to leave, and/or on a path to involuntary termination. This is a company with notoriously high turnover already, with lots of reports of a toxic work environment. Couldn't they just pause hiring and wait for headcount to organically decline to target numbers? With reported 20% annual turnover, that really shouldn't take very long...
Truetree9999 OP t1_iwyw7py wrote
Lol you should be apart of amazon leadership
IvoShandor t1_iwuaak6 wrote
Sounds like the prison complex on Narkina 5. Lowest producers get buzzed.
Commercial_Sand_1800 t1_iwuejlz wrote
Fire all exec management as they obviously can’t deal with shifting economic situations past the gross “fire everyone”
jtmarshiii t1_iwvkh9x wrote
Managers all should report 'C' level executives!!!
[deleted] t1_iwsp8q2 wrote
[removed]
ladamadevalledorado t1_iwsu8e9 wrote
Well stack ranking worked well recently at another fine employer.
just_nobodys_opinion t1_iwtac4r wrote
Overflow error
Jerkofalljerks t1_iwttm8n wrote
So? Telecommunications companies have done this for decades.
w3bCraw1er t1_iwttmgl wrote
That’s innovative
imakeholesinu t1_iwurq46 wrote
So Bezos, Musk, et la are all upset Democrats overperformed in the midterms that they have to cause a recession before the 2024 election cycle.
Swonzen t1_iwuv3gj wrote
Most managers cannot identify the performance of developers or similar personal. They focus on their management and have mostly no idea what their people are doing. They do not sit together with them and invest time in quality, since all that they are evaluated at is quantity. It's not their fault, it's the culture of the company. I'm a C level manager, and I hate how some companies want to micro manage their team and at the same time have no idea, what they are capable of and what their problems are. I'm sick of it.
[deleted] t1_iwuzasw wrote
[removed]
harangatangs t1_iwvunti wrote
Seems like a lot of these companies are both expecting a downturn but also trying to reclaim some power with their employees. I won't feel a drop of pity if six months later they suddenly need to recover those positions and can't find anybody.
[deleted] t1_iwz16rm wrote
[removed]
AutoModerator t1_iwz16ss wrote
Thank you for your submission, but due to the high volume of spam coming from Medium.com and similar self-publishing sites, /r/Technology has opted to filter all of those posts pending mod approval. You may [message the moderators](/message/compose?to=/r/technology&subject=Request for post review) to request a review/approval provided you are not the author or are not associated at all with the submission. Thank you for understanding.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted] t1_ixnzjra wrote
[deleted]
miltonfriedman2028 t1_iwusg87 wrote
This is how normal businesses have functioned for fifty years.
Blows my mind tech never gets rid of bad performers and just lets them do nothing, and just hires an extra person instead.
HelloAvram t1_iwsvkog wrote
Duh, it makes sense.
littleMAS t1_iwt501s wrote
Forced ranking works best when it identifies those who are the poorest match for their jobs and works to reposition or retrain them before having to let them go, a continuous process. If a company suddenly decides to use forced ranking as a pretext for a layoff, it is just an excuse for letting managers dump who they do not like.