5 ms·
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’
by 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 agoThis 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 ago6% 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.
- lupire 5y agoBut if firing is mandatory, ALL hiring is hiring to fire, so where is the story? Obviously if you are forced to cull X% you are going to try to maintain 1+X% staffing level.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 5y agoYes, hiring to fire is an obvious consequence of a firing quota. The firing quota is the headline. The hiring to fire is a gory detail.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y agoThis is all old news, anyhow, is it not? I recall hearing about the Amazon mandatory firing process years ago.