3 ms·

If an employee is as good as you think they should be, why would you put it at risk of termination? Because quality of the employee and the employee's work are

If an employee is as good as you think they should be, why would you put it at risk of termination? Because quality of the employee and the employee's work are not the only factors in hiring and firing decisions. Sometimes a smaller workforce is what makes sense, and if all your engineers are "meeting expectations", what are you going to do?

okcando 7y ago
There are other factors but just one is under discussion: cutting the bottom five percent in performance reviews. And if consecutively "meeting expectations" puts you near the bottom, then the expectation must actually be to exceed expectations. Nevermind that this policy necessarily means churn and undervaluing aspects of software like security or fault tolerance and a constant drain of institutional knowledge.
- solipsism 7y ago
  I'm not arguing for the policy. I wouldn't want to work at a place like that. But I feel like this isn't very hard to understand and I don't know what you're not getting about it. And if consecutively "meeting expectations" puts you near the bottom, then the expectation must actually be to exceed expectations. Uh.. no.. you seem to think "meets expectations" necessarily means "will not get fired". This policy exists, as dumb as it may be. Imagine you're a manager at a company like this and you're tasked with giving a performance review. You have two choices: you could do what you seem to be implying they should go and fudge the ratings, so that the bottom 5% always get "does not meet expectations." Or you could say "fuck that stupid rule, I'm going to rate this person honestly, and if they still fire him that's their choice." A performance rating and a company policy about firing are two completely separate things. I think you must have a naive understanding of how staffing decisions are made in the real world.

okcando 7y ago

There are other factors but just one is under discussion: cutting the bottom five percent in performance reviews. And if consecutively "meeting expectations" puts you near the bottom, then the expectation must actually be to exceed expectations. Nevermind that this policy necessarily means churn and undervaluing aspects of software like security or fault tolerance and a constant drain of institutional knowledge.

solipsism 7y ago
I'm not arguing for the policy. I wouldn't want to work at a place like that. But I feel like this isn't very hard to understand and I don't know what you're not getting about it. And if consecutively "meeting expectations" puts you near the bottom, then the expectation must actually be to exceed expectations. Uh.. no.. you seem to think "meets expectations" necessarily means "will not get fired". This policy exists, as dumb as it may be. Imagine you're a manager at a company like this and you're tasked with giving a performance review. You have two choices: you could do what you seem to be implying they should go and fudge the ratings, so that the bottom 5% always get "does not meet expectations." Or you could say "fuck that stupid rule, I'm going to rate this person honestly, and if they still fire him that's their choice." A performance rating and a company policy about firing are two completely separate things. I think you must have a naive understanding of how staffing decisions are made in the real world.