4 ms·
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
by 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 agoThat's not correct. The article simply says they are tracking a metric. There's no mention of a "quota".
- tyuqfromhere 5y agoMetrics 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 agohttps://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.