6 ms·

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 pos

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.
    - lupire 5y ago
      > It’s undisputed that Amazon has a quota for attrition that managers must meet. Citation needed.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - koheripbal 5y ago
      That's not correct. The article simply says they are tracking a metric. There's no mention of a "quota".
      - tyuqfromhere 5y ago
        Metrics are quotas at Amazon. There is a literally a training during your onboarding about Amazon's "metrics culture", and how the only reason you track a metric is if you have a corresponding target for that metric, as well as someone responsible for ensuring that the metric reaches that target. Amazon doesn't just track random metrics for the hell of it. Those metrics and targets are used either for or against you during annual performance reviews, and URA/RA targets are one of the most important metrics for manager-track employees. If that isn't a 'quota', then I don't know what would be.
      - fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
        https://archive.is/nf8tn https://archive.is/nf8tn Leaked internal memo shows that if an org doesn’t meet the target this year, they have to make it up next year.
  - bestcoder69 5y ago
    Someone literally did that already, but with BI rather than NYT! That’s why we’re talking about this! I feel like I’m taking crazy pills reading this overall thread.
    - aerosmile 5y ago
      Based on my experience with you elsewhere on this page, I was already wondering if you were a troll or just genuinely confused (on top of being rude and being a name caller). Let me help you out: You are in a subthread that branched off of this statement: > 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. So the conversation veered away from the BI article, and we're now focusing on the relevancy of anecdotal evidence that was presented by another HN member. The fact that you needed this explained completes the picture for me with regards to all your other comments.
  - MattGaiser 5y ago
    There are a heck of a lot of anecdotes with the same hire to fire claim and I have heard them as well from former Amazon employees. Plenty of them on Blind as well, which verifies company employment. Sure, fire has not been found, but there is a ton of smoke on this.
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.

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.
  - lupire 5y ago
    > It’s undisputed that Amazon has a quota for attrition that managers must meet. Citation needed.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - koheripbal 5y ago
    That's not correct. The article simply says they are tracking a metric. There's no mention of a "quota".
    - tyuqfromhere 5y ago
      Metrics are quotas at Amazon. There is a literally a training during your onboarding about Amazon's "metrics culture", and how the only reason you track a metric is if you have a corresponding target for that metric, as well as someone responsible for ensuring that the metric reaches that target. Amazon doesn't just track random metrics for the hell of it. Those metrics and targets are used either for or against you during annual performance reviews, and URA/RA targets are one of the most important metrics for manager-track employees. If that isn't a 'quota', then I don't know what would be.
    - fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
      https://archive.is/nf8tn https://archive.is/nf8tn Leaked internal memo shows that if an org doesn’t meet the target this year, they have to make it up next year.
- bestcoder69 5y ago
  Someone literally did that already, but with BI rather than NYT! That’s why we’re talking about this! I feel like I’m taking crazy pills reading this overall thread.
  - aerosmile 5y ago
    Based on my experience with you elsewhere on this page, I was already wondering if you were a troll or just genuinely confused (on top of being rude and being a name caller). Let me help you out: You are in a subthread that branched off of this statement: > 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. So the conversation veered away from the BI article, and we're now focusing on the relevancy of anecdotal evidence that was presented by another HN member. The fact that you needed this explained completes the picture for me with regards to all your other comments.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  There are a heck of a lot of anecdotes with the same hire to fire claim and I have heard them as well from former Amazon employees. Plenty of them on Blind as well, which verifies company employment. Sure, fire has not been found, but there is a ton of smoke on this.

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.