7 ms·

I don’t understand how being in an interview loop would tell you whether hire-to-fire is occurring. If a manager wanted to hire someone on their team with the i

I don’t understand how being in an interview loop would tell you whether hire-to-fire is occurring. If a manager wanted to hire someone on their team with the intent of firing them, they would hire someone who passed the ordinary interview process. They wouldn’t attach a note to the candidate’s file saying “we don’t really need to interview this one, we’re just going to fire them.” There would be a normal paper trail and nobody other than the manager would know that about the plan.

koheripbal 5y ago
The source article actually provides no evidence of "hire-to-fire" practices. It simply states that there is a target URA of 6% and that's it. The article posted here is pure speculation. ...and having worked for other large companies, I've seen similar metrics being tracked. It doesn't mean any of them are hiring just to fire people. Frankly, I've noticed a LOT of poorly written anti-Amazon articles around, and I'm not clear if there's some effort to undermine the company. Is Amazon a political organization?
- fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
  I was personally told by a former manager who used to work at Amazon that he hired to fire. He hated that the company forced him to fire good people and left.
  - aerosmile 5y ago
    A guy supposedly tells another guy that some highly weird thing that makes no sense at all is common at their company. This is how we learned about Enron, so sure, let's admit the evidence. But also, this is how 99% of BS spreads across the internet, so whenever possible let's please use more than just anecdotal evidence from an anonymous account. If your friend has a story to tell, please direct them appropriately - we all know that the NYT would love to tear Amazon a new one. But please recognize just how weak your argument sounds as of right now.
    - KittenInABox 5y ago
      Who in their right mind would go on record blasting a company worth as much as Amazon? It'll ruin their career. Unless corporations stop being as powerful, whisper networks are all we have.
      - aerosmile 5y ago
        The NYT has a great track record of protecting their sources.
        TeMPOraL 5y ago
        Except when they don't. Did you miss the Scott Alexander / SlateStarCodex saga recently? It revealed that NYT's policies around revealing people's identity are pretty hit-and-miss.
        aerosmile 5y ago
        Not aware of this. But as a former NYT employee, I can tell you they try harder than anyone else out there.
        quickthrowman 5y ago
        Scott Alexander was the subject of a story, not an anonymous journalistic source which is what the poster you replied to was referring to when they said the NYT protects their sources. I am not disputing that the NYT revealed his full name, they absolutely did so that, against his wishes.
    - fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
      It’s undisputed that Amazon has a quota for attrition that managers must meet. The only question is how are they meeting it. Why is it so hard to believe that a manger who likes all of their employees would inflate their headcount request to get someone new to fire? It’s practically a mechanical result of the quota. Of course they wouldn’t go on record about this, it’s wrong and possibly illegal (the manager must have lied when filling out some paperwork). But it would be more surprising if it didn’t occur.
- kukx 5y ago
  Indeed, it seems like a garbage, clickbait article. It should not be on HN.
- philwelch 5y ago
  > Frankly, I've noticed a LOT of poorly written anti-Amazon articles around, and I'm not clear if there's some effort to undermine the company. Is Amazon a political organization? They’re one of the largest corporations in the world; of course they’re a political organization.
- andreilys 5y ago
  More anecdata but I have a friend at Amazon who confirmed the hire-to-fire mentality. There’s a mandate to PIP and the manager wants to protect their productive employees so they hire someone and set them up to fail. I don’t think you’re going to get any clean documentation on this process - it’s simply a result of a system that stack ranks and mandates firing.
  - otterley 5y ago
    Just about every large company has low performing employees, and just about every large company (at least in the U.S.) has a PIP process that attempts to help redeem employees who are identified to be at risk of flunking out. Some individuals, for better or worse, are just not fit to work in a particular role or at a particular company, and fail the PIP. This system is not unique to Amazon, and it's very common in the industry. About 15 years ago, I was placed on a PIP for low performance at a large technical employer. I managed to climb out of my hole and shine, but it's a good lesson in humility and responding constructively to feedback.
  - chrledntsurf 5y ago
    sample size.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Given the overall industry turnover figures, a 6% URA target seems like something that's so low as to not be especially impactful. "Oh @sokoloff quit? He was OK but let's mark him as non-regrettable so we can hit our target. Where do you want to get lunch?"
  - rewind234902 5y ago
    Yes, this happens. But the trick is that you have to have the employee on the development list before the termination is keyed in the HR system. The good news, is that the manager is usually responsible for entering the termination (voluntary or involuntary). In happy cases like this, and in cases where you actually have significant performance problems, URA isn't so bad. The more degenerate situations happen in circumstances like: * The employee wants to internal transfer. Bad Manager X immediately adds Employee Y to the development list and says "Oh ho ho, you're not able to transfer because of your performance problems." For Bad Manager X, the apparent incentive is high - either the employee stays and you keep the resource or they leave and you get URA credit. Obviously this leads to pretty awful situations, but I saw it happen multiple times. This can also happen when the manager is trying to protect the employee - e.g. add them to DL but not actually fire them. This usually backfires. * Senior management pushes down URA targets. Hey, you've got a 15 person group? That means you need to pick one person to let go. Satisfied with all of their performance and understaffed to begin with? I don't care. Don't you want to have another great performer like employee Z? You need to make room, so tell me who is the least impressive person on your team. This leads to really sociopathic management behaviors. All of this would be OK to me, if it was done transparently and more objectively. But Amazon has thrown out all the paper trail and messaged to employees that they aren't being stack ranked, which is complete bullshit. Pro tip if you're working at Amazon: if you get a PCS with no additional grant and no base increase, you're on the development list. Find another job, or do something amazing.
    - stadium 5y ago
      Never tell your manager about plans to transfer, or even apply, until you've got a verbal offer in hand. Ask the manager for a "soft loop" which is basically an interview done off the books with no paper trail. Once you apply, your manager, hr, and others are notified.
- jsight 5y ago
  I think it is just the news has a negativity bias. It happens in trendy and groupthink oriented ways, though.
- northern-lights 5y ago
  Nobody will ever get documents that proves as that is confidential information. If you want anecdotal evidence, you can check Blind.
variaga 5y ago
The article specifically stated that Amazon managers were hiring unqualified people: >Instead, Amazon managers are hiring people they otherwise wouldn't, or shouldn't, just so they can later fire them to hit their goal. And as OP is correctly pointing out, that can't happen, because the bar raiser can veto any hire they think is unqualified. Or at least it can't happen without the bar raiser colluding - and since the bar raiser is not the hiring manager (or even from the same part of the organization as the hiring manager) and they are not being evaluated on the UAR, they have no incentive for this. If, as you suggest, managers were hiring _qualified_ people with the intent of firing them... I guess there's no way to prove that isn't happening but FWIW, I'm also at Amazon and have been part of a bunch of interviews and I've seen no evidence of that.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
  The sentence you quoted says the manager “wouldn’t, or shouldn’t” hire these candidates. In my understanding, this means they aren’t needed, not that they aren’t qualified. That’s the essence of the “hire to fire” practice - hiring someone not because you need them to do the job, but because you need to meet your firing quota. For a person to get placed on a team at Amazon, the manager must be making some representation that they need another employee. Amazon isn’t going to waste headcount by giving it to managers who don’t ask for it. This means managers have control over whether hires are joining their team. Therefore a manager can execute the plan of hiring to fire. It doesn’t matter whether they have the power to approve a specific candidate.
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    This makes sense. If I knew my team was going to lose 6% of it's members, I'd hire 6% more people to compensate for the loss. Even if the goal isn't to fire them that's what ends up happening.
    - UncleMeat 5y ago
      6% is in the noise for software planning. Is there ever a single project where you are confident that 20 people is what you need so you can submit a headcount request for 21 so that you'll have one to drop? I've never seen planning that was able to achieve this level of precision.
philwelch 5y ago
But if that last person is good enough to get past the bar raiser, they wouldn’t necessarily be the one getting fired later. It would make more sense to just hire more people than you need in the first place, intending to fire the worst performer later on without necessarily knowing ahead of time who that worst performer is going to be. Which is brutal but has a certain logic to it.
- username90 5y ago
  Many teams has higher standard than the company bar though, the company bar is the lowest possible level anyone is allowed to be hired at not some decent average. In theory a bar raiser should ensure the candidate is better than 50% of those in similar roles, but that obviously can't be true after all these years, the bad 50% has all gotten hired via the same process.
- lokar 5y ago
  You seem to assume totally objective performance management
  - philwelch 5y ago
    No.
- cryptische 5y ago
  Managers generally overrule other's opinions by giving promise of personally "coaching" the new hire to make them meet the bar. In most cases such people are put on a plan, ironically called "Coaching Plan" itself, and thereafter fired. URA quota is an open secret at Amazon, and some employee appreciate the practice of hire to fire, as it saves their own employment. That in turn ensures that objection to bad hire, who is going to be "coached" is non existent.
- lobocinza 5y ago
  Darwinian

koheripbal 5y ago

The source article actually provides no evidence of "hire-to-fire" practices. It simply states that there is a target URA of 6% and that's it. The article posted here is pure speculation. ...and having worked for other large companies, I've seen similar metrics being tracked. It doesn't mean any of them are hiring just to fire people. Frankly, I've noticed a LOT of poorly written anti-Amazon articles around, and I'm not clear if there's some effort to undermine the company. Is Amazon a political organization?

fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
I was personally told by a former manager who used to work at Amazon that he hired to fire. He hated that the company forced him to fire good people and left.
- aerosmile 5y ago
  A guy supposedly tells another guy that some highly weird thing that makes no sense at all is common at their company. This is how we learned about Enron, so sure, let's admit the evidence. But also, this is how 99% of BS spreads across the internet, so whenever possible let's please use more than just anecdotal evidence from an anonymous account. If your friend has a story to tell, please direct them appropriately - we all know that the NYT would love to tear Amazon a new one. But please recognize just how weak your argument sounds as of right now.
  - KittenInABox 5y ago
    Who in their right mind would go on record blasting a company worth as much as Amazon? It'll ruin their career. Unless corporations stop being as powerful, whisper networks are all we have.
    - aerosmile 5y ago
      The NYT has a great track record of protecting their sources.
      - TeMPOraL 5y ago
        Except when they don't. Did you miss the Scott Alexander / SlateStarCodex saga recently? It revealed that NYT's policies around revealing people's identity are pretty hit-and-miss.
        aerosmile 5y ago
        Not aware of this. But as a former NYT employee, I can tell you they try harder than anyone else out there.
        quickthrowman 5y ago
        Scott Alexander was the subject of a story, not an anonymous journalistic source which is what the poster you replied to was referring to when they said the NYT protects their sources. I am not disputing that the NYT revealed his full name, they absolutely did so that, against his wishes.
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
    It’s undisputed that Amazon has a quota for attrition that managers must meet. The only question is how are they meeting it. Why is it so hard to believe that a manger who likes all of their employees would inflate their headcount request to get someone new to fire? It’s practically a mechanical result of the quota. Of course they wouldn’t go on record about this, it’s wrong and possibly illegal (the manager must have lied when filling out some paperwork). But it would be more surprising if it didn’t occur.
kukx 5y ago
Indeed, it seems like a garbage, clickbait article. It should not be on HN.
philwelch 5y ago
> Frankly, I've noticed a LOT of poorly written anti-Amazon articles around, and I'm not clear if there's some effort to undermine the company. Is Amazon a political organization? They’re one of the largest corporations in the world; of course they’re a political organization.
andreilys 5y ago
More anecdata but I have a friend at Amazon who confirmed the hire-to-fire mentality. There’s a mandate to PIP and the manager wants to protect their productive employees so they hire someone and set them up to fail. I don’t think you’re going to get any clean documentation on this process - it’s simply a result of a system that stack ranks and mandates firing.
- otterley 5y ago
  Just about every large company has low performing employees, and just about every large company (at least in the U.S.) has a PIP process that attempts to help redeem employees who are identified to be at risk of flunking out. Some individuals, for better or worse, are just not fit to work in a particular role or at a particular company, and fail the PIP. This system is not unique to Amazon, and it's very common in the industry. About 15 years ago, I was placed on a PIP for low performance at a large technical employer. I managed to climb out of my hole and shine, but it's a good lesson in humility and responding constructively to feedback.
- chrledntsurf 5y ago
  sample size.
sokoloff 5y ago
Given the overall industry turnover figures, a 6% URA target seems like something that's so low as to not be especially impactful. "Oh @sokoloff quit? He was OK but let's mark him as non-regrettable so we can hit our target. Where do you want to get lunch?"
- rewind234902 5y ago
  Yes, this happens. But the trick is that you have to have the employee on the development list before the termination is keyed in the HR system. The good news, is that the manager is usually responsible for entering the termination (voluntary or involuntary). In happy cases like this, and in cases where you actually have significant performance problems, URA isn't so bad. The more degenerate situations happen in circumstances like: * The employee wants to internal transfer. Bad Manager X immediately adds Employee Y to the development list and says "Oh ho ho, you're not able to transfer because of your performance problems." For Bad Manager X, the apparent incentive is high - either the employee stays and you keep the resource or they leave and you get URA credit. Obviously this leads to pretty awful situations, but I saw it happen multiple times. This can also happen when the manager is trying to protect the employee - e.g. add them to DL but not actually fire them. This usually backfires. * Senior management pushes down URA targets. Hey, you've got a 15 person group? That means you need to pick one person to let go. Satisfied with all of their performance and understaffed to begin with? I don't care. Don't you want to have another great performer like employee Z? You need to make room, so tell me who is the least impressive person on your team. This leads to really sociopathic management behaviors. All of this would be OK to me, if it was done transparently and more objectively. But Amazon has thrown out all the paper trail and messaged to employees that they aren't being stack ranked, which is complete bullshit. Pro tip if you're working at Amazon: if you get a PCS with no additional grant and no base increase, you're on the development list. Find another job, or do something amazing.
  - stadium 5y ago
    Never tell your manager about plans to transfer, or even apply, until you've got a verbal offer in hand. Ask the manager for a "soft loop" which is basically an interview done off the books with no paper trail. Once you apply, your manager, hr, and others are notified.
jsight 5y ago
I think it is just the news has a negativity bias. It happens in trendy and groupthink oriented ways, though.
northern-lights 5y ago
Nobody will ever get documents that proves as that is confidential information. If you want anecdotal evidence, you can check Blind.

variaga 5y ago

The article specifically stated that Amazon managers were hiring unqualified people: >Instead, Amazon managers are hiring people they otherwise wouldn't, or shouldn't, just so they can later fire them to hit their goal. And as OP is correctly pointing out, that can't happen, because the bar raiser can veto any hire they think is unqualified. Or at least it can't happen without the bar raiser colluding - and since the bar raiser is not the hiring manager (or even from the same part of the organization as the hiring manager) and they are not being evaluated on the UAR, they have no incentive for this. If, as you suggest, managers were hiring _qualified_ people with the intent of firing them... I guess there's no way to prove that isn't happening but FWIW, I'm also at Amazon and have been part of a bunch of interviews and I've seen no evidence of that.

fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
The sentence you quoted says the manager “wouldn’t, or shouldn’t” hire these candidates. In my understanding, this means they aren’t needed, not that they aren’t qualified. That’s the essence of the “hire to fire” practice - hiring someone not because you need them to do the job, but because you need to meet your firing quota. For a person to get placed on a team at Amazon, the manager must be making some representation that they need another employee. Amazon isn’t going to waste headcount by giving it to managers who don’t ask for it. This means managers have control over whether hires are joining their team. Therefore a manager can execute the plan of hiring to fire. It doesn’t matter whether they have the power to approve a specific candidate.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  This makes sense. If I knew my team was going to lose 6% of it's members, I'd hire 6% more people to compensate for the loss. Even if the goal isn't to fire them that's what ends up happening.
  - UncleMeat 5y ago
    6% is in the noise for software planning. Is there ever a single project where you are confident that 20 people is what you need so you can submit a headcount request for 21 so that you'll have one to drop? I've never seen planning that was able to achieve this level of precision.

philwelch 5y ago

But if that last person is good enough to get past the bar raiser, they wouldn’t necessarily be the one getting fired later. It would make more sense to just hire more people than you need in the first place, intending to fire the worst performer later on without necessarily knowing ahead of time who that worst performer is going to be. Which is brutal but has a certain logic to it.

username90 5y ago
Many teams has higher standard than the company bar though, the company bar is the lowest possible level anyone is allowed to be hired at not some decent average. In theory a bar raiser should ensure the candidate is better than 50% of those in similar roles, but that obviously can't be true after all these years, the bad 50% has all gotten hired via the same process.
lokar 5y ago
You seem to assume totally objective performance management
- philwelch 5y ago
  No.
cryptische 5y ago
Managers generally overrule other's opinions by giving promise of personally "coaching" the new hire to make them meet the bar. In most cases such people are put on a plan, ironically called "Coaching Plan" itself, and thereafter fired. URA quota is an open secret at Amazon, and some employee appreciate the practice of hire to fire, as it saves their own employment. That in turn ensures that objection to bad hire, who is going to be "coached" is non existent.
lobocinza 5y ago
Darwinian