4 ms·

Wait, they only started reviewong employee data ONE MONTH ago?? Thats some serious management incompetence. What's with this weaselly language, too... "At leas

Wait, they only started reviewong employee data ONE MONTH ago?? Thats some serious management incompetence. What's with this weaselly language, too... "At least 250 employees" also means "No more than 250 employees". If it was more, they would have just said the bigger number to prove their point. Which means the other 650 employees they fired did not have productivity problems, and they're just trying to blame their workers to avoid admitting to management problems.

the-pigeon 5y ago
Obviously this is "hey HR we need to layoff 900 people, what can we do to make it their fault?" Maybe it's a reasonable cover your ass move but comes off very slimy.
beerandt 5y ago
It's in the context of having just gone on a massive hiring spree in the last year+, and the market starting to cool off. I had the same initial thought, but it sounds more like this was about measurement of the recent hirings, not overall. Still not great.
s1artibartfast 5y ago
250 were 2 hours per day. This leaves a lot of room for workers <8 hours.
- 2fast4you 5y ago
  Can you find one employee that truly works 8 hours a day?
  - ripper1138 5y ago
    Lmao underrated comment
  - tucnak 5y ago
    You found me.
    - 2fast4you 5y ago
      You are 100% productive for 8 hours a day?
      - rvba 5y ago
        "The consulting way" is to spend 12-14 hours at work to be productive for 9-10. Similar to crunch, but crunch can be more brutal. Also probably you arent as effective if you just worked for 8 hours, you are still productive though.
      - kapp_in_life 5y ago
        Not who you're replying to, but even if I'm not 100% productive I'm also not ignoring phone calls, and showing up late for meetings. All while billing my company for OT
  - beerandt 5y ago
    It's performance based (not entirely timeclock based), so it's more useful as a relative metric. (Although, missed calls, etc, suggests actual availability problems separate from productivity.) Which doesn't necessarily mean anybody was truly working 8 hours per day, but it does suggest that the top/satisfactory tier of employees averaged 4x the productivity for the same number of hours on the timesheet. A 4x multiplier like that isn't explained by a normal distribution curve.
- SkittyDog 5y ago
  Of course, there's a huge gulf of possibility, and he definitely creates the impression that those 900 people were fired for being bad employee... But I'm awfully concerned that you're so willing to take this guy at face value, uncritically. You know what else he doesn't say? The median, mean, & mode of his workforce's productivity (hours/day)? Also, how have those productivity numbers changed, over time? What if the mortgage market is slowing, and his company is ASSIGNING LESS WORK to those 250-900 employees than it did, previously? That means his market is drying up quickly, and his company may be at risk... Better not let the media know about that! What if the median/average productivity of his entire workforce is only 2.5 hours/day, because it's so poorly managed that those people aren't being given useful tasks to do? That would mean management is incompetent, and we DEFinitely better not let the media know about that!
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    >But I'm awfully concerned that you're so willing to take this guy at face value, uncritically. Thank you for the concern. I'm not taking anything at face value, just pointing out the logical inconsistency that if 250 are <2 hours, then 650 must be >= 8 hours, which is how your comment read (to me at least). Who knows what the real story is and we certainly don't have the information required to make an informed opinion.
beerandt 5y ago
>Which means the other 650 employees they fired did not have productivity problems No- it just suggests/implies the remainder had an average productivity of greater than (2hrs-value/8hrs-pay). That doesn't mean they were or weren't still performing below expectations. The fact that they were selected for layoffs over the retained employees suggests they were the lowest performing segment, regardless of whether that relatively low performance was satisfactory in an absolute sense or not. >What's with this weaselly language, too... "At least 250 employees" also means "No more than 250 employees". If it was more, they would have just said the bigger number to prove their point. And using this logic, if those 650 employees were collectively productive enough to generate a net-positive value, they wouldn't have been fired.

the-pigeon 5y ago

Obviously this is "hey HR we need to layoff 900 people, what can we do to make it their fault?" Maybe it's a reasonable cover your ass move but comes off very slimy.

beerandt 5y ago

It's in the context of having just gone on a massive hiring spree in the last year+, and the market starting to cool off. I had the same initial thought, but it sounds more like this was about measurement of the recent hirings, not overall. Still not great.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

250 were 2 hours per day. This leaves a lot of room for workers <8 hours.

2fast4you 5y ago
Can you find one employee that truly works 8 hours a day?
- ripper1138 5y ago
  Lmao underrated comment
- tucnak 5y ago
  You found me.
  - 2fast4you 5y ago
    You are 100% productive for 8 hours a day?
    - rvba 5y ago
      "The consulting way" is to spend 12-14 hours at work to be productive for 9-10. Similar to crunch, but crunch can be more brutal. Also probably you arent as effective if you just worked for 8 hours, you are still productive though.
    - kapp_in_life 5y ago
      Not who you're replying to, but even if I'm not 100% productive I'm also not ignoring phone calls, and showing up late for meetings. All while billing my company for OT
- beerandt 5y ago
  It's performance based (not entirely timeclock based), so it's more useful as a relative metric. (Although, missed calls, etc, suggests actual availability problems separate from productivity.) Which doesn't necessarily mean anybody was truly working 8 hours per day, but it does suggest that the top/satisfactory tier of employees averaged 4x the productivity for the same number of hours on the timesheet. A 4x multiplier like that isn't explained by a normal distribution curve.
SkittyDog 5y ago
Of course, there's a huge gulf of possibility, and he definitely creates the impression that those 900 people were fired for being bad employee... But I'm awfully concerned that you're so willing to take this guy at face value, uncritically. You know what else he doesn't say? The median, mean, & mode of his workforce's productivity (hours/day)? Also, how have those productivity numbers changed, over time? What if the mortgage market is slowing, and his company is ASSIGNING LESS WORK to those 250-900 employees than it did, previously? That means his market is drying up quickly, and his company may be at risk... Better not let the media know about that! What if the median/average productivity of his entire workforce is only 2.5 hours/day, because it's so poorly managed that those people aren't being given useful tasks to do? That would mean management is incompetent, and we DEFinitely better not let the media know about that!
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  >But I'm awfully concerned that you're so willing to take this guy at face value, uncritically. Thank you for the concern. I'm not taking anything at face value, just pointing out the logical inconsistency that if 250 are <2 hours, then 650 must be >= 8 hours, which is how your comment read (to me at least). Who knows what the real story is and we certainly don't have the information required to make an informed opinion.

beerandt 5y ago

>Which means the other 650 employees they fired did not have productivity problems No- it just suggests/implies the remainder had an average productivity of greater than (2hrs-value/8hrs-pay). That doesn't mean they were or weren't still performing below expectations. The fact that they were selected for layoffs over the retained employees suggests they were the lowest performing segment, regardless of whether that relatively low performance was satisfactory in an absolute sense or not. >What's with this weaselly language, too... "At least 250 employees" also means "No more than 250 employees". If it was more, they would have just said the bigger number to prove their point. And using this logic, if those 650 employees were collectively productive enough to generate a net-positive value, they wouldn't have been fired.