7 ms·

One thing stuck out to me: > Or, as Vox’s Jason Del Rey writes in another story this week [see below], “Amazon corporate managers have goals for “unregretted a

by cletus 5y ago

One thing stuck out to me: > Or, as Vox’s Jason Del Rey writes in another story this week [see below], “Amazon corporate managers have goals for “unregretted attrition” — basically a percentage of their staff that should leave the company each year, either voluntarily or by being forced out.” It’s just like Adam Serwer put it in a different context: the cruelty is the point. So, for anyone who is in even salaried positions in tech including engineering, sales, product management and whatever... don't think for a second you're immune to this "up or out" force. I hate to break it to you but Big Tech companies do this too. It's just not as blatant. Here's how: all these companies have a performance review system. It might be 1, 2 or 4 times a year. The exact process varies. Typically you'll review yourself and others will review you. Some will stack rank directly, others will stack rank indirectly. How this works is that groups of managers will come together and decide what everyone's performance was given their review and their level. To avoid "ratings inflation" each ratings bucket will have a range it needs to stay in. So the entire org can't be "strongly exceeds expectations" by design. But the dark side of this is that subpar ratings have targets too. For argument's sake, say that number is 8%. That means the employees get ranked and those buckets will be applied so the bottom 8% will end with a subpar rating. Depending on your company this can be the kiss of death essentially forcing you out the door. In corporate America the "up or out" culture is more explicit (eg get promoted within 3 years or you're out) but the effect is basically the same. This is not limited to hourly employees and it is absolutely present in tech.

necrotic_comp 5y ago
"up or out" seems like such a strange concept - I understand the idea of trimming fat, but I've seen a firing of 5-10% annually, and it's demoralizing and terrifying as a worker. You're basically put in a position where you don't want to do too poorly, as you're guaranteed to get fired, but you also don't want to do too well, because then you may hit your ceiling too early, end up being "overpaid", then underperform and be set up for the cull. I've seen both, and the yearly ritual of managers coming in and tapping people on the shoulder, them walking out to never be seen again ... I hated that.
- ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
  Isn't that what the "stack ranked" system is about? Wasn't that a Microsoft invention? It's been around a long time.
  - muststopmyths 5y ago
    It was actually a GE invention and adopted by companies across a wide swath of industry. These were the days when Jack Welch was the prophet of business leaders and if he did something, it must be good. Several companies in Silicon Valley also used stack ranking, for example. edit:typo
    - ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
      That makes sense. I worked there, back when "Neutron Jack" was in charge. I don't remember that, but they probably didn't come out and say it (also, I rated fairly high -they even gave me an award, after I left the company. I still have the plaque, upstairs).
    - teddyc 5y ago
      I was taught in business school (early 2000s) that it was good that GE fired the lowest 10% performing employees b/c the employees were not actually happy or content at GE or they would perform better. Therefore firing them is good b/c they'll find a better career fit elsewhere. But I actually think it is terrible. It pits co-workers against each other and makes taking credit for an accomplishment more important than doing what's best for the organization.
      - x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
        It's probably good if it's done once every four years. But companies do it every year if not multiple times a year. So at that point, without new blood coming in, you end up cutting into the meat of a high performance org.
    - spamizbad 5y ago
duxup 5y ago
I've only run into this issue in 'corporate America' once in my career. I worked for a company who acquired another company. Acquired company was bonkers dysfunctional. First day I met them one of the managers bragged about how hard he worked his people and how many would leave. I just didn't get it. What good does that do? He didn't get more out of his people, quite the opposite, his team didn't perform well. He was unpleasant to just be around, almost anytime, his employees clearly hated him. I'm not super social but I at least like to work with people that ... I want to be around to some extent. Let alone my question of "Why would you want to be like that to other people?" It was weird because it was one of the only times I encountered this issue.
- criddell 5y ago
  > Let alone my question of "Why would you want to be like that to other people?" Did you actually ask that? Did you get a response?
  - duxup 5y ago
    Yes, he kinda paused and then talked around it about how it is his job. But what was weird was it absolutely wasn't any kind of company policy, nobody else was quite like that. It was possible I might end up working for him at some point so I didn't push the issue. Not that it helped... he didn't like me much at all as time went on, mostly I showed some level of independence. Fortunately I was pretty well insulated from him and his efforts to complain about me were pretty childish / ineffective.
shishy 5y ago
Yes. I've worked at a place where the CEO up and said "we're OK with losing <X>% of employees per quarter" which was just insane to me to release that publicly to everyone, at a time when all our friends were leaving or given the boot. Really killed morale.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Tech has (and other industries have) a characteristic turnover rate and people have all sorts of reasons to change jobs, so being OK with losing an appropriately chosen X% per quarter seems perfectly rational and appropriate. I like the teams we have here, but I'm OK with losing about 2% of employees per quarter in the same way that I'm OK with it being snowier in the wintertime.
- astrange 5y ago
  You need to be okay with losing X% of employees because they're going to quit for their own reasons, or they're going to be hit by a bus, or want to change jobs internally. This doesn't mean that you push them out, but rather that you make sure more than one person knows how everything works.
swiley 5y ago
Imagine working every day to ensure the world is miserable up to a required quota. I don't know if I could do that, I might be happier homeless.
- DiggyJohnson 5y ago
  What do you do for a livelihood?
xibalba 5y ago
It's funny, this was the pull quote for me too. Or at least this part: > the cruelty is the point. However, my reaction is quite different. It became hard to take this article seriously at all after they drew that conclusion. It is flagrantly false. To wit, they don't produce any documentation (whereas elsewhere the article is awash) to support this claim. No email threads where a sinister VP says, "Back to drawing board gang, this proposal isn't cruel enough." Very clearly, the point is performance. The author's fantastical conclusion ("cruelty is the point") reeks to high heaven of the sort of leaps in logic and interpretation that seems to be undermining the credibility of some of the West's most hallowed institutions.
- duxup 5y ago
  >Very clearly, the point is performance. Yeah from my understanding from former Amazon folks it is hyper performance oriented. The outcome (as far as treating people) might suck, but the motivation seems to genuinely be performance.
  - kesselvon 5y ago
    It's a distinction without a difference.
    - duxup 5y ago
      I think motivation and the intent of the policy is relevant.
      - ryandrake 5y ago
        The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does[1]. It doesn't really matter what the motivation or intent was. If the outcome is cruelty, then it is a cruel policy. If the people who make the policy don't intend for the outcome to be cruel, it is within their power to change it. EDIT: If the outcome is also a high performing workforce, then the policy can be both cruel and performance enhancing. I'm just arguing that a policy that ends up being $X is an $X policy, regardless of whether the policy makers intended it to be $X, for whatever value of X you choose. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
u678u 5y ago
I've worked for up or out companies most of my career. I get it can be uncomfortable but there is a good reason there is forced ranking. Most managers hate giving bad reviews to people that aren't doing well. If someone on the team is doing some work but not doing much its easier to say they meet standards and be nice to them. My current job is like this, there are a bunch in the team that do very little but manager is too nice and I think the firm suffers.
- RankingMember 5y ago
  I think this ignores the value of long-haulers who are reliable contributors but don't necessarily want to be in management roles. I could see an up-or-out environment without significant allowances essentially ending in an organization full of Peter-principled managers who would've been more solid contributors at their old positions.
BeFlatXIII 5y ago
That also gives the incentive to hire dunces to fire at the end of the year so you can keep your team intact.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  Which has been confirmed to happen at Amazon.
savanaly 5y ago
>the cruelty is the point. I just don't get this part. On an intellectual level the point they just got done making is that cruelty is not the point. It's a byproduct of the system. The "point" of the whole thing is having a motivated and efficient workforce, at almost any cost. This is arguably evil and immoral, but it's not the case that the ultimate aim of the policies is to be cruel. I guess the author just included it because they're very emotional about it and want me to be emotional about it too?
matt_s 5y ago
If HR says "You can't have all high performers on a team", they are telling a manager that you aren't allowed to excel in your own job as a coach. They are literally telling you not to spend your time helping employees because some HR chart wizard is going to make you rank them anyways and you will have wasted your time. The way this should be done is to recognize who are motivated high performers and make sure they get help on their path "upward". This isn't saying to ignore others but recognize that people are at different stages of careers and will have different needs.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by cletus 5y ago

necrotic_comp 5y ago

"up or out" seems like such a strange concept - I understand the idea of trimming fat, but I've seen a firing of 5-10% annually, and it's demoralizing and terrifying as a worker. You're basically put in a position where you don't want to do too poorly, as you're guaranteed to get fired, but you also don't want to do too well, because then you may hit your ceiling too early, end up being "overpaid", then underperform and be set up for the cull. I've seen both, and the yearly ritual of managers coming in and tapping people on the shoulder, them walking out to never be seen again ... I hated that.

ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
Isn't that what the "stack ranked" system is about? Wasn't that a Microsoft invention? It's been around a long time.
- muststopmyths 5y ago
  It was actually a GE invention and adopted by companies across a wide swath of industry. These were the days when Jack Welch was the prophet of business leaders and if he did something, it must be good. Several companies in Silicon Valley also used stack ranking, for example. edit:typo
  - ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
    That makes sense. I worked there, back when "Neutron Jack" was in charge. I don't remember that, but they probably didn't come out and say it (also, I rated fairly high -they even gave me an award, after I left the company. I still have the plaque, upstairs).
  - teddyc 5y ago
    I was taught in business school (early 2000s) that it was good that GE fired the lowest 10% performing employees b/c the employees were not actually happy or content at GE or they would perform better. Therefore firing them is good b/c they'll find a better career fit elsewhere. But I actually think it is terrible. It pits co-workers against each other and makes taking credit for an accomplishment more important than doing what's best for the organization.
    - x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
      It's probably good if it's done once every four years. But companies do it every year if not multiple times a year. So at that point, without new blood coming in, you end up cutting into the meat of a high performance org.
  - spamizbad 5y ago

duxup 5y ago

I've only run into this issue in 'corporate America' once in my career. I worked for a company who acquired another company. Acquired company was bonkers dysfunctional. First day I met them one of the managers bragged about how hard he worked his people and how many would leave. I just didn't get it. What good does that do? He didn't get more out of his people, quite the opposite, his team didn't perform well. He was unpleasant to just be around, almost anytime, his employees clearly hated him. I'm not super social but I at least like to work with people that ... I want to be around to some extent. Let alone my question of "Why would you want to be like that to other people?" It was weird because it was one of the only times I encountered this issue.

criddell 5y ago
> Let alone my question of "Why would you want to be like that to other people?" Did you actually ask that? Did you get a response?
- duxup 5y ago
  Yes, he kinda paused and then talked around it about how it is his job. But what was weird was it absolutely wasn't any kind of company policy, nobody else was quite like that. It was possible I might end up working for him at some point so I didn't push the issue. Not that it helped... he didn't like me much at all as time went on, mostly I showed some level of independence. Fortunately I was pretty well insulated from him and his efforts to complain about me were pretty childish / ineffective.

shishy 5y ago

Yes. I've worked at a place where the CEO up and said "we're OK with losing <X>% of employees per quarter" which was just insane to me to release that publicly to everyone, at a time when all our friends were leaving or given the boot. Really killed morale.

sokoloff 5y ago
Tech has (and other industries have) a characteristic turnover rate and people have all sorts of reasons to change jobs, so being OK with losing an appropriately chosen X% per quarter seems perfectly rational and appropriate. I like the teams we have here, but I'm OK with losing about 2% of employees per quarter in the same way that I'm OK with it being snowier in the wintertime.
astrange 5y ago
You need to be okay with losing X% of employees because they're going to quit for their own reasons, or they're going to be hit by a bus, or want to change jobs internally. This doesn't mean that you push them out, but rather that you make sure more than one person knows how everything works.

swiley 5y ago

Imagine working every day to ensure the world is miserable up to a required quota. I don't know if I could do that, I might be happier homeless.

DiggyJohnson 5y ago
What do you do for a livelihood?

xibalba 5y ago

It's funny, this was the pull quote for me too. Or at least this part: > the cruelty is the point. However, my reaction is quite different. It became hard to take this article seriously at all after they drew that conclusion. It is flagrantly false. To wit, they don't produce any documentation (whereas elsewhere the article is awash) to support this claim. No email threads where a sinister VP says, "Back to drawing board gang, this proposal isn't cruel enough." Very clearly, the point is performance. The author's fantastical conclusion ("cruelty is the point") reeks to high heaven of the sort of leaps in logic and interpretation that seems to be undermining the credibility of some of the West's most hallowed institutions.

duxup 5y ago
>Very clearly, the point is performance. Yeah from my understanding from former Amazon folks it is hyper performance oriented. The outcome (as far as treating people) might suck, but the motivation seems to genuinely be performance.
- kesselvon 5y ago
  It's a distinction without a difference.
  - duxup 5y ago
    I think motivation and the intent of the policy is relevant.
    - ryandrake 5y ago
      The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does[1]. It doesn't really matter what the motivation or intent was. If the outcome is cruelty, then it is a cruel policy. If the people who make the policy don't intend for the outcome to be cruel, it is within their power to change it. EDIT: If the outcome is also a high performing workforce, then the policy can be both cruel and performance enhancing. I'm just arguing that a policy that ends up being $X is an $X policy, regardless of whether the policy makers intended it to be $X, for whatever value of X you choose. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...

u678u 5y ago

I've worked for up or out companies most of my career. I get it can be uncomfortable but there is a good reason there is forced ranking. Most managers hate giving bad reviews to people that aren't doing well. If someone on the team is doing some work but not doing much its easier to say they meet standards and be nice to them. My current job is like this, there are a bunch in the team that do very little but manager is too nice and I think the firm suffers.

RankingMember 5y ago
I think this ignores the value of long-haulers who are reliable contributors but don't necessarily want to be in management roles. I could see an up-or-out environment without significant allowances essentially ending in an organization full of Peter-principled managers who would've been more solid contributors at their old positions.

BeFlatXIII 5y ago

That also gives the incentive to hire dunces to fire at the end of the year so you can keep your team intact.

colinmhayes 5y ago
Which has been confirmed to happen at Amazon.

savanaly 5y ago

>the cruelty is the point. I just don't get this part. On an intellectual level the point they just got done making is that cruelty is not the point. It's a byproduct of the system. The "point" of the whole thing is having a motivated and efficient workforce, at almost any cost. This is arguably evil and immoral, but it's not the case that the ultimate aim of the policies is to be cruel. I guess the author just included it because they're very emotional about it and want me to be emotional about it too?

matt_s 5y ago

If HR says "You can't have all high performers on a team", they are telling a manager that you aren't allowed to excel in your own job as a coach. They are literally telling you not to spend your time helping employees because some HR chart wizard is going to make you rank them anyways and you will have wasted your time. The way this should be done is to recognize who are motivated high performers and make sure they get help on their path "upward". This isn't saying to ignore others but recognize that people are at different stages of careers and will have different needs.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]