3 ms·

[Managers at Amazon are] expected to lose, either voluntarily or through termination, a specific number of employees every year. If you don't, you're expected t

by adolph 5y ago

[Managers at Amazon are] expected to lose, either voluntarily or through termination, a specific number of employees every year. If you don't, you're expected to make up for it the following year. Managers are even evaluated using this metric, known as "unregretted attrition rate" (URA). Basically, it's the number of people you wouldn't be sad to see leave the company. Amazon managers are hiring people they otherwise wouldn't, or shouldn't, just so they can later fire them to hit their goal. That completely defeats the point since--if the metric is based on sound business principles--there are people keeping their job who shouldn't, at the expense of the sacrificial lamb.

macksd 5y ago
That's not even the only way it defeats the business goal: you're now intentionally paying people that you have no intention of getting a long-term return on, or that you know aren't worth what you're paying them. To say nothing of the damage it artificially does to a person's self esteem and future career prospects with an obvious PIP-like tenure at Amazon on their resume.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  It advances the business goal by preventing some bullshit HR process from disrupting the business.
- mypalmike 5y ago
  It so strongly defeats the business goals that maybe the source of the reporting (the super high quality publication, Business Insider) might be full of it.
  - macksd 5y ago
    Might be, indeed - but it's definitely not unusual or incredible for a large organization to have misaligned incentives, ignorant executives making some of them up, and then being reluctant to admit they weren't as good of an idea as they thought.
Joker_vD 5y ago
It seems that huge corporations look very much like a socialist centrally-planned state from the inside, gee, I wonder why is that so. Oh, right: because for some reason huge corporations don't seem to have actual competitive markets inside them to co-ordinate the conducted economical activity, gee, I wonder why is that so.

by adolph 5y ago

macksd 5y ago

That's not even the only way it defeats the business goal: you're now intentionally paying people that you have no intention of getting a long-term return on, or that you know aren't worth what you're paying them. To say nothing of the damage it artificially does to a person's self esteem and future career prospects with an obvious PIP-like tenure at Amazon on their resume.

Spooky23 5y ago
It advances the business goal by preventing some bullshit HR process from disrupting the business.
mypalmike 5y ago
It so strongly defeats the business goals that maybe the source of the reporting (the super high quality publication, Business Insider) might be full of it.
- macksd 5y ago
  Might be, indeed - but it's definitely not unusual or incredible for a large organization to have misaligned incentives, ignorant executives making some of them up, and then being reluctant to admit they weren't as good of an idea as they thought.

Joker_vD 5y ago

It seems that huge corporations look very much like a socialist centrally-planned state from the inside, gee, I wonder why is that so. Oh, right: because for some reason huge corporations don't seem to have actual competitive markets inside them to co-ordinate the conducted economical activity, gee, I wonder why is that so.