> there is zero evidence in the article that "hire to fire" is actually a thing at Amazon. In fact it cannot be a thing since managers do not have the final say

> there is zero evidence in the article that "hire to fire" is actually a thing at Amazon. In fact it cannot be a thing since managers do not have the final say in who gets hired and who doesn't. Hiring and staffing is always horse-trading even when it’s not being actively manipulated in the way this article suggests. “Send me your req so I can land these two top tier candidates and I’ll be sure to work your projects first”. “Everybody rate your employees for bonuses, then submit the ratings to the CIO so we can decide who gets the two ‘above and beyond’ bonuses we got this year.” I’m not saying it is happening at Amazon as I have no direct knowledge. But it is pretty easy to see how stack ranking can introduce bad incentives: ICs doing the interview recommend candidates worse than them to pad their positions, managers do the same so their chaff gets approved.