15 ms·

I'm not sure how it's done at Amazon - they are, after all, notorious for driving employees hard - but my understanding is that poor performance over a year or

I'm not sure how it's done at Amazon - they are, after all, notorious for driving employees hard - but my understanding is that poor performance over a year or so is usually about the point at which firing begins to be discussed at large companies. And the problem wasn't that he didn't want to perform or was intrinsically a bad employee; the problem was that he literally couldn't due to circumstance. It's not generous to say "well, find a way to work through your wife's brain cancer and we'll keep you on."

bloodyplonker22 5y ago
Many things wrong with your comment, starting with the fact that firing beings to be discussed only after a year. It actually begins to be discussed immediately after the employee is assessed to be an underperformer. It's only after a year of bad written performance reviews that they can actually start to do something about it, such as put the employee on a "PIP" or fire the employee.
- ivraatiems 5y ago
  What were the other things?
- majormajor 5y ago
  At the large company I was at firing wouldn’t be a conversation until at least one review cycle of poor performance (every 6mo), more likely after two. The PIP started at the same time as the firing conversation; before that was time given for the employee and manager to try to figure it out themselves. (Which maybe is what you mean by “is assessed to be an underperformer,” but then doesn’t disagree with the comment you’re replying to, really.)
yibg 5y ago
What's the alternative though? Let the employee continue to underperform indefinitely? I feel the same way here. I have a lot of empathy for the author, what he went through sounds like hell. But I'm not sure what Amazon was supposed to do here. This feels like a failing of the US health care system and social safety net more than anything else. Specifically in this case having to have a job (when you're least able to keep a job) to continue having medical insurance.

bloodyplonker22 5y ago

Many things wrong with your comment, starting with the fact that firing beings to be discussed only after a year. It actually begins to be discussed immediately after the employee is assessed to be an underperformer. It's only after a year of bad written performance reviews that they can actually start to do something about it, such as put the employee on a "PIP" or fire the employee.

ivraatiems 5y ago
What were the other things?
majormajor 5y ago
At the large company I was at firing wouldn’t be a conversation until at least one review cycle of poor performance (every 6mo), more likely after two. The PIP started at the same time as the firing conversation; before that was time given for the employee and manager to try to figure it out themselves. (Which maybe is what you mean by “is assessed to be an underperformer,” but then doesn’t disagree with the comment you’re replying to, really.)

yibg 5y ago

What's the alternative though? Let the employee continue to underperform indefinitely? I feel the same way here. I have a lot of empathy for the author, what he went through sounds like hell. But I'm not sure what Amazon was supposed to do here. This feels like a failing of the US health care system and social safety net more than anything else. Specifically in this case having to have a job (when you're least able to keep a job) to continue having medical insurance.