5 ms·

> So a manager might make a bad hire because so they don't have to fire any of the people they like. This is well documented behavior, even in Jack Welch’s boo

> So a manager might make a bad hire because so they don't have to fire any of the people they like. This is well documented behavior, even in Jack Welch’s book. He was the one famous for cutting 5% every year at GE.

sokoloff 5y ago
At Amazon*, the "bar raiser" has to approve the hire though, so there's a pretty mechanistic control against the worst form of this. * - as I understand it; never worked there.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  At Amazon you still hire good people you just mark them poorly because you don't want to break up your team.
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    I get that Amazon is known for their cold, calculated workforce, but it really takes a special kind of person to execute a, "hire someone just to fire them no matter how they do" plan over the course of like, an entire year, and honestly it's not even in that manager's best interest if the new person is actually pretty good. Are we really suggesting that's the norm at Amazon? Maybe, but wow.
  - amzn-throw 5y ago
    No, you don't: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27378836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27378836
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      The link you pointed to mentions how hire managers are looking to hiring as many good people as possible. Of course they are if so many people are being fired. It says that managers who don't perform well will be out. And that was the reason given for why this practice doesn't happen. Wouldn't the existing employees know the system better and be more valuable? Unless you want to get rid of someone it is better to keep your existing staff. Team members can't help the new person because them doing well would mean putting yourself at risk. It is setup to be toxic.
      - amzn-throw 5y ago
        > Of course they are if so many people are being fired. You don't seem to understand. Amazon grows by 15-30% every single year. We're constantly hiring, even if there is no attrition. We also have a high bar. The ~ ratio is 20 phone screens to 4 onsites to 1 hire. That's a lot of work to get a butt in a seat. > Unless you want to get rid of someone it is better to keep your existing staff. Only if you presume that every single team has to identify that X% of people for the URA target. They don't. Period. Full Stop. It's a lie. > Team members can't help the new person because them doing well would mean putting yourself at risk The #1 thing that gets asked about individuals during yearly operational reviews is "what did they deliver"? We try to identify individual contributions but individuals can't ship. Teams ship.
- throwme1234 5y ago
  You can still have bad hires. It happens rarely that the bar raising process outright fails, but it still happens, since the data you get out of an interview is very limited. For example, we had a team member that not only was doing a bad job on his own stuff, he was a drain on morale and resources for the whole team, since he constantly complained about everything, he never tried to learn anything, he posted big commit dumps every few months - hundreds of commits at once - and the code quality on those was abysmal. Luckily we got rid of him pretty fast, but not fast enough.
- awsthro00945 5y ago
  Most bar raisers are limp noodles that will just do whatever the hiring manager says. It's trivially easy to hire a mediocre person with full intent to fire them, and a bar raiser would likely be none-the-wiser nor would they stop it.

sokoloff 5y ago

At Amazon*, the "bar raiser" has to approve the hire though, so there's a pretty mechanistic control against the worst form of this. * - as I understand it; never worked there.

ipaddr 5y ago
At Amazon you still hire good people you just mark them poorly because you don't want to break up your team.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  I get that Amazon is known for their cold, calculated workforce, but it really takes a special kind of person to execute a, "hire someone just to fire them no matter how they do" plan over the course of like, an entire year, and honestly it's not even in that manager's best interest if the new person is actually pretty good. Are we really suggesting that's the norm at Amazon? Maybe, but wow.
- amzn-throw 5y ago
  No, you don't: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27378836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27378836
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    The link you pointed to mentions how hire managers are looking to hiring as many good people as possible. Of course they are if so many people are being fired. It says that managers who don't perform well will be out. And that was the reason given for why this practice doesn't happen. Wouldn't the existing employees know the system better and be more valuable? Unless you want to get rid of someone it is better to keep your existing staff. Team members can't help the new person because them doing well would mean putting yourself at risk. It is setup to be toxic.
    - amzn-throw 5y ago
      > Of course they are if so many people are being fired. You don't seem to understand. Amazon grows by 15-30% every single year. We're constantly hiring, even if there is no attrition. We also have a high bar. The ~ ratio is 20 phone screens to 4 onsites to 1 hire. That's a lot of work to get a butt in a seat. > Unless you want to get rid of someone it is better to keep your existing staff. Only if you presume that every single team has to identify that X% of people for the URA target. They don't. Period. Full Stop. It's a lie. > Team members can't help the new person because them doing well would mean putting yourself at risk The #1 thing that gets asked about individuals during yearly operational reviews is "what did they deliver"? We try to identify individual contributions but individuals can't ship. Teams ship.
throwme1234 5y ago
You can still have bad hires. It happens rarely that the bar raising process outright fails, but it still happens, since the data you get out of an interview is very limited. For example, we had a team member that not only was doing a bad job on his own stuff, he was a drain on morale and resources for the whole team, since he constantly complained about everything, he never tried to learn anything, he posted big commit dumps every few months - hundreds of commits at once - and the code quality on those was abysmal. Luckily we got rid of him pretty fast, but not fast enough.
awsthro00945 5y ago
Most bar raisers are limp noodles that will just do whatever the hiring manager says. It's trivially easy to hire a mediocre person with full intent to fire them, and a bar raiser would likely be none-the-wiser nor would they stop it.