4 ms·

As also pointed out in the thread yesterday, that comment about Bar Raisers was nonsense. The fact is that HMs do have the final say in most cases. It is very e

As also pointed out in the thread yesterday, that comment about Bar Raisers was nonsense. The fact is that HMs do have the final say in most cases. It is very easy to “game the system” and get candidates past the hiring loop, BR or not. Plus, the entire argument that “there’s a bar raiser involved” is irrelevant to the point. Hire-and-fire doesn’t mean that HMs are trying to sneak unqualified candidates through the process. What it means is that HMs will take even qualified candidates, which pass the BR with no problem, and set them up for failure and firing.

amzn-throw 5y ago
> It is very easy to “game the system” and get candidates past the hiring loop, BR or not. False. Source: Am bar raiser. 9 year Amazonian, >500 interviews. Am a manager. I do performance reviews. Yes, there are unregretted attrition rates. But "hire to fire" is absolutely not a thing. > HMs will take even qualified candidates, which pass the BR with no problem, and set them up for failure and firing. That is so ridiculous people are laughing at this concept internally. Hiring good people is HARD. Interviewing takes a lot of time. Amazon sets very ambitious goals internally, and managers are behind on them from the day they got their head count, even it takes months to fill out. If you have a viable quality candidate available, you TAKE THEM. Holy shit do you take them. Hiring managers are DESPERATE For people. And they will beg barter and steal for hires, and try to convince bar raisers to lower the bar to get people in. The idea that some teams have such low-pressure goals and their managers are so loyal to their team members that they would hire a candidate just to fire them is absolutely insanely false. If managers don't meet their goals THEY eventually become "Unregretted attrition". So if a manager has head count to fill it's for a goal, and they are way more loyal to meeting those goals as a team than to protect a good team from unregretted attrition targts. Which by the way is also not mandatory for every team. It needs to average out across Amazon, and directors/VPs will aggegate numbers and roll them up, but ultimately if you have a team full of rockstars, none of them will be marked for URA. I don't care what is written on Blind. Those people are fucking liars. I don't believe a single one about hire to fire. This article and the one yesterday is just pure libel.
- cryptische 5y ago
  No one has said that Amazon itself has made Hire to fire a system. It doesn't make sense for a business to implement such a loss making strategy. > Hiring managers are DESPERATE For people You already admit to this. Now add to this the pressure on hiring managers to fire a certain number from his team. The only course of action he can take is to convince the bar raiser to accept the new hire even if the candidate is subpar. It's strange that even after 500 interviews you have not this. I've been involved in less than a fifth of that interview number, and already seen this. Even if you have not seen such cases you don't have any basis to claim that it doesn't happen. Logic and majority of evidence indicates that this takes place.
  - trhway 5y ago
    >The only course of action he can take is to convince the bar raiser to accept the new hire even if the candidate is subpar. I suppose it is much easier to convince the bar raiser if the manager promises/explains that that hire isn't going to be here for long as for the bar raiser there is no point to object in such situation.
    - amzn-throw 5y ago
      Jesus Christ the amount of unprofessional projection in this thread is insane. No. That could not happen. Bar raisers are hiring to raise the bar for Amazon. Period.
- ex_amazon_sde 5y ago
  > Hiring managers are DESPERATE For people. And they will beg barter and steal for hires, and try to convince bar raisers to lower the bar to get people in. You just described something that comes very close to "hire to fire". I've been in Amazon for long enough to see the hiring bar float up and down a lot, with big differences based on the team and the country. Once you put together URA and the staggering attrition rate that exists in many high-pressure teams the managers are left with only two options: A) Hire very skilled and productive engineers and then find ways to push them out of the company later on B) Let the bar slip sometimes and keep the good engineers for a bit longer By all means, "A" happens far more frequently than "B" and, in many ways, it's even worse.

amzn-throw 5y ago

> It is very easy to “game the system” and get candidates past the hiring loop, BR or not. False. Source: Am bar raiser. 9 year Amazonian, >500 interviews. Am a manager. I do performance reviews. Yes, there are unregretted attrition rates. But "hire to fire" is absolutely not a thing. > HMs will take even qualified candidates, which pass the BR with no problem, and set them up for failure and firing. That is so ridiculous people are laughing at this concept internally. Hiring good people is HARD. Interviewing takes a lot of time. Amazon sets very ambitious goals internally, and managers are behind on them from the day they got their head count, even it takes months to fill out. If you have a viable quality candidate available, you TAKE THEM. Holy shit do you take them. Hiring managers are DESPERATE For people. And they will beg barter and steal for hires, and try to convince bar raisers to lower the bar to get people in. The idea that some teams have such low-pressure goals and their managers are so loyal to their team members that they would hire a candidate just to fire them is absolutely insanely false. If managers don't meet their goals THEY eventually become "Unregretted attrition". So if a manager has head count to fill it's for a goal, and they are way more loyal to meeting those goals as a team than to protect a good team from unregretted attrition targts. Which by the way is also not mandatory for every team. It needs to average out across Amazon, and directors/VPs will aggegate numbers and roll them up, but ultimately if you have a team full of rockstars, none of them will be marked for URA. I don't care what is written on Blind. Those people are fucking liars. I don't believe a single one about hire to fire. This article and the one yesterday is just pure libel.

cryptische 5y ago
No one has said that Amazon itself has made Hire to fire a system. It doesn't make sense for a business to implement such a loss making strategy. > Hiring managers are DESPERATE For people You already admit to this. Now add to this the pressure on hiring managers to fire a certain number from his team. The only course of action he can take is to convince the bar raiser to accept the new hire even if the candidate is subpar. It's strange that even after 500 interviews you have not this. I've been involved in less than a fifth of that interview number, and already seen this. Even if you have not seen such cases you don't have any basis to claim that it doesn't happen. Logic and majority of evidence indicates that this takes place.
- trhway 5y ago
  >The only course of action he can take is to convince the bar raiser to accept the new hire even if the candidate is subpar. I suppose it is much easier to convince the bar raiser if the manager promises/explains that that hire isn't going to be here for long as for the bar raiser there is no point to object in such situation.
  - amzn-throw 5y ago
    Jesus Christ the amount of unprofessional projection in this thread is insane. No. That could not happen. Bar raisers are hiring to raise the bar for Amazon. Period.
ex_amazon_sde 5y ago
> Hiring managers are DESPERATE For people. And they will beg barter and steal for hires, and try to convince bar raisers to lower the bar to get people in. You just described something that comes very close to "hire to fire". I've been in Amazon for long enough to see the hiring bar float up and down a lot, with big differences based on the team and the country. Once you put together URA and the staggering attrition rate that exists in many high-pressure teams the managers are left with only two options: A) Hire very skilled and productive engineers and then find ways to push them out of the company later on B) Let the bar slip sometimes and keep the good engineers for a bit longer By all means, "A" happens far more frequently than "B" and, in many ways, it's even worse.