17 ms·

Interesting quote from CEO in an all hands directly to employees. I don't want to be at Meta right now.. .."turning up the heat" on performance management to w

• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• gedy 4y ago
  I'm not a Meta-hater, but the tone of this is always destructive when it comes up. It's basically soft layoffs that try and paint those leaving/pushed out as "unmotivated" or "can't keep up with the rest of us". I wish companies would be more honest that they aren't doing well, over hired, etc instead. I kinda get mgmt types thinking this will keep remaining feeling motivated, safe, etc. but it's very phoney to a lot of us who've been through this before.
  • hinkley 4y ago
    I've heard it asserted that your median level of talent doesn't change much with these strategies. But that means you're losing people that you could probably ill afford to lose.
    • redisman 4y ago
      When things get nasty and it’s clear the good days are over it’s usually those most able to leave (the actual best employees) who get the message
      • deckard1 4y ago
        but where do they go? You can't escape the recession. All the FAANGs are in it. A startup seems even more risky in this atmosphere.
    • doktorhladnjak 4y ago
      I’ve worked at a couple places that took this layoff philosophy. Twelve months later headcount was back to the same level. More of the best employees left on their own volition after layoffs. Company spent a bunch in severance and damaged reputation for no real gain. Shareholders I guess felt they got their pound of flesh.
    • go_elmo 4y ago
      Maybe you didnt mean it that technical, but the median is very robust to outliers. So your first statement is true but the conclusion is not necessarily.
      • hinkley 4y ago
        No, this is an old saw and we see it happen over and over and the managers never learn. When they announce things like this, or voluntary layoffs, they mean for the lower quartile to leave in droves and for the overall quality of the remaining employees to improve. For the amount of stuff per dollar to increase. But what actually happens is that a few of the lower quartiles leave, and at least as many from the upper quartiles leave. None of the Dunning Kruger people leave because they’re all that and a bag of chips. So you tend toward mediocrity. Doubly so because when the changes that management expected don’t happen, now everyone knows there is likely to be a round of involuntary layoffs. So the people you have left either start playing it safe or become demotivated, further lowering the stuff per dollar. And now the company is doing worse, and some idiot upstairs thinks it’s just their predictions coming true, instead of self fulfilling prophecy. Not that I mean any of this as a lecture or warning for Zuck. More like a movie trailer. I hope it all burns and we get to watch it happen. But more likely they’ll turn into Microsoft. Fewer teeth, but still essentially the same bastards they always were, because changing a negative founder culture is really, really hard for any social or business group.
  • JKCalhoun 4y ago
    > I kinda get mgmt types thinking this will keep remaining feeling motivated, safe, etc. That seems completely counterintuitive to me. Seeing your co-worker tip off the end of the plank doesn't make me feel safe as we are all inching closer to the end of it. Though it would motivate me to look for a job elsewhere.
• asd88 4y ago
  Lol, Meta (with their known intense PSC culture) of all places is doing this?
  • coolandsmartrr 4y ago
    PSC culture?
    • achow 4y ago
      Performance Summary Cycle. This is a two-week period that kick-starts the review process for both managers and employees. https://candor.co/articles/tech-careers/performance-reviews-bonuses-at-facebook https://candor.co/articles/tech-careers/performance-reviews-...
    • TomVDB 4y ago
      Performance Summary Cycle. It's a thing where you get performance reviews every 6 months, and where every minute contribution gets scored. Or so I've been told by a former mid-level Facebook manager who quit after a bit more than a year because he couldn't stand that toxic place anymore. I found it particularly funny that the interviewers who gave the thumbs up to hire him would get bad marks because of his early departure.
      • achow 4y ago
        I read that it is once in a year now.
        • pavlov 4y ago
          Yes, they changed it effective this year. No more summer PSC, just the January one. If anything, that makes this internal announcement worse because of the whiplash. "We're going to make PSC less onerous and stressful by only doing it once a year!" "Just kidding, we're actually going full Hunger Games with the new once-a-year cycle!"
          • 4y ago
• d--b 4y ago
  Does this read “Let’s ditch those ethical people who get in the way of profit.”? Yes FB is not for me. Not as a worker, not as a customer.
  • boredtofears 4y ago
    Imagine how bleak it must be to be an average SWE at facebook. Sure, you get paid a ton of money, but now they are going to "turn up the heat" on you to pump glorified CRUD message board features faster. (yes, I know there are probably lots of intellectually interesting jobs at Meta, but the overall purpose and mission just isn't exactly inspiring)
    • malermeister 4y ago
      I quit Facebook because I was getting pings by Zuckerberg himself on button padding on one of his pet projects.
      • abdabab 4y ago
        Shouldn’t that take only a few minutes?
        • malermeister 4y ago
          Haha, not in the codebase I was working in at the time. Paddings being manipulated programmatically all over the place. Also, what a clear signal the CEO is not focusing on what matters. This was during the time the Cambridge Analytica thing broke... There's really nothing more important that needed his attention?
          • bayindirh 4y ago
            Maybe he needed something to direct his stress into and distract himself. I'm not saying what he did was right, BTW.
• ggambetta 4y ago
  Should have finished that email with "may the odds be ever in your favor".
• Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
  What's with this seemingly-new use of 'staffers' instead of 'personnel' or 'staff?' 'Staffers' to me always meant personnel in a political context, i.e. White House Staffers or, in a commercial context, recruiters, i.e. people responsible for providing staff. Does anyone else concur? I did check with the dictionary which is telling me that 'staffers' is a synonym for 'staff' but... I've not seen it used that way commonly until very recently.
  • yieldcrv 4y ago
    You will never beee president You will never beee president So that's one less thing to worry about, one less thing to worry about I imagine that song from Hamilton plays on Zuck’s bidet
    • Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
      You think they're using the term specifically because of its political-staff connotations? Interesting...
      • yieldcrv 4y ago
        he had some delusional political aspirations before so I could see him trying to internalize it
  • npteljes 4y ago
    Aren't staffers the ones who work in hiring, talent acquisition, etc?
    • Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
      Yes, to me 'staffer' means 'recruiter' as in, a person responsible for providing staff. In the context of a political organisation it is used to mean 'team members' (because they're not always formally employed staff) but I've not encountered it being used that way to refer to staff/consultants employed by a private company, hence my questioning.
• yieldcrv 4y ago
  Just do the old Netflix culture doc style Welcome! You're going to get fired! If you want a “family” join a startup!
  • tsimionescu 4y ago
    What a horrible idea. Truly great engineering requires long-term commitment. Great engineering organizations often have people leave by retiring, not being fired.
    • andsoitis 4y ago
      Tenure at Netflix tends to be longer than at other tech companies. https://developerpitstop.com/how-long-do-software-engineers-stay-at-a-job/# https://developerpitstop.com/how-long-do-software-engineers-...
      • mercutio2 4y ago
        The numbers on that graph for the companies I'm familiar with are wildly, wildly incorrect. I have no idea where those numbers come from, but I don't for a second buy the idea that average tenure at Netflix is larger than others on the peninsula.
        • KerrAvon 4y ago
          I am also skeptical of that data. Some of the companies mentioned couldn’t function with that rate of churn.
• npteljes 4y ago
  >"Part of my hope by raising expectations and having more aggressive goals, and just kind of turning up the heat a little bit, is that I think some of you might decide that this place isn't for you, and that self-selection is OK with me," he said. This, to me, sounds like he's pressuring people to leave, so that they don't have to fire them, which would involve severance.
  • cs137 4y ago
    Generally, people who get PIP'd don't get severance, even if fired. The real purpose of the PIP process is to grind people down so they make mistakes, costing them what could otherwise be beautiful lawsuits [1], or just stop showing up (which I guess would fall under quitting, since they end up firing themselves, at least bureaucratically speaking). ---- [1] This is surprisingly easy to do in the US. If you post about your termination on social media, this can be construed as "cause after the fact" and make a termination that was in fact unjust or unlawful now legal. The employer's argument becomes that they knew you held malice toward the company ("cause") but couldn't prove it--the social media activity becomes said "proof".
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • halfmatthalfcat 4y ago
      That may be for more cold blooded companies but most PIPs I've witnessed have gotten severance and actually good packages to boot.
      • aeyes 4y ago
        Agree, I mostly saw: Take this generous amount of money and hand in your resignation or you won't have to come back tomorrow and you get nothing.
        • DisjointedHunt 4y ago
          Take this generous amount of money (1 month pay) and SIGN THIS WAIVER RELEASING US OF ALL FUTURE LIABILITIES is the important part.
• tarsinge 4y ago
  > turning up the heat Well that was long due: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2013/mar/11/facebook-staff-chill-cold-offices https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2013/mar/11...
  • rsynnott 4y ago
    15 degrees! Presumably only where legally permitted. For instance, Ireland: > for sedentary office work, a minimum temperature of 17.5° C, so far as is reasonably practicable, is achieved and maintained at every workstation after the first hour’s work.
• dom96 4y ago
  Wow. Guess I left Meta just in time. It still feels difficult to believe Zuckerberg would say this though.
  • grepfru_it 4y ago
    Anyone who was someone at Davos are saying the same things.
• cs137 4y ago
  This is the, "I fucked up and I'm going to have cut people, but I'm going to blame the people getting cut because I'm a shit human being" speech. It's never a good sign.
  • kypro 4y ago
    Not really. Business cycles exist and advertisement is extremely cyclical. Labour demand isn't fixed. Sometimes you have to cut not because you over hired, but because economic conditions change and this seems to be what's happening in regards to Facebook. I don't think he's blaming anyone either. The fact he's acknowledging there are probably people working at FB who shouldn't be suggests you're wrong and that for years FB has kept people despite it not being the company's best interests. Tbh I wish all companies were honest about why they're cutting back. I know I've been given BS reasons for being cut before and I've also been given no notice or warning. This seems relatively honest and direct in comparison. Those providing value will be fine, those who are not will be let go - isn't this how employment should function?
    • fleetwoodsnack 4y ago
      Returning to contract law; the employment agreement is a contract engaged by two or more parties to exchange labor for money (or a basket of financial incentives including money, in part). In virtually every instance, Meta proffered the employment contract and its provisions, vetted the counter party, and gave assent to enter into contract. Arguably, “there are probably a bunch of people at the company who shouldn't be here,” and their intent to “turn up the heat,” represents a failure of Meta to conduct proper due diligence when entering into contract, and a modification of the provisions of employment after-the-fact. In most instances these would be considered organizational failures. Your reference to the business cycle and other delicate economic terms are not the explanatory variables, not even to Meta themselves.
      • DisjointedHunt 4y ago
        Yeah, i really don't understand the point he thinks he was making. These companies spend BILLIONS on employee benefits to take away the noise of "real life". You CAN NOT attract top tier talent easily to a dumpster fire and they know this. You can't be giving away free food, ice cream, no performance reviews for two years during the pandemic and shipping 10s of thousands of office equipment to each individual employees homes for two years during the pandemic, continue to approve aggressive hiring plans and laying out $10 Billion dollar outlays for the fucking Metaverse and then turn around and say to the employees you hired that "You guys suck" I would just call it childish, but this asshole deserves no benefit of doubt. It's downright disgusting.
• mgh2 4y ago
  He is blaming the economy and employees, when in fact the product itself is dying. Lots of CEOs with bad businesses will play this card to avoid responsibility...
  • WJW 4y ago
    > there are probably a bunch of people at the company who shouldn't be here Would be interesting to see whether he still considers himself essential for the future of Meta.
    • oblio 4y ago
      How many founders of successful companies willingly stepped out? 1%? 0.01%? :-)
      • Kye 4y ago
        There was a thread on HN some time ago discussing how different growth stages needed different people in the hot seat, and the fate of a company was often decided by the founder's willingness to cede control to someone with the right skills and experience. I think it came up in the context of VCs wanting to bring in CEOs for this purpose and the pushback they encountered.
        • dilyevsky 4y ago
          Ofc VCs would prefer ceo they fully control ;-) what else is new?
      • abeppu 4y ago
        How would you know? When a founder is out unwillingly, most of the time don't both sides pretend it was willing and amicable because they know it looks bad?
  • kornhole 4y ago
    I keep asking people if they know anybody excited about the metaverse. I have not found any even among people who are total Facebook products.
• papito 4y ago
  I wonder how many people at Meta are there specifically for the money. Just learn to game their interview process, get in, and coast. I doubt that there are a lot of engineers working for Zuck for the love of the mission, let alone for moral reasons. In other news, the value of a developer who knows how to solve the problem at hand vs torching your money on maintaining the overkill of dozens of microservices has just gone up.
  • karaterobot 4y ago
    Every single Meta employee I know is only there for the money, and for the ability to put Facebook/Meta on their resume for the next job. Nobody is really interested in the product, though all but one of them like the working conditions and how they treat [engineers] there. Anecdotal, obviously.
• matwood 4y ago
  > Realistically, there are probably a bunch of people at the company who shouldn't be here He's probably not wrong though. People are routinely amazed just how many people these large companies employ. Big company culture often slips into not what is delivered, but how many people does a manager have under them. In the past, successful companies have used economic downturns as a way to reset this culture.
  • KerrAvon 4y ago
    Can you name a few of those companies? I’d genuinely like to read about them. My current hypothesis is that a company needs to have a near-death experience to acquire actual management discipline and true focus. Chrysler in 1979. Apple in 1996.
• myunclestory 4y ago
  > Realistically, there are probably a bunch of people at the company who shouldn't be here," He makes it sound like these people sneaked in into the company without being hired. This reminds me of my greedy uncle - went to a wedding, gobbled every other food and drink in sight and then when the fierce loose motions hit, blamed the food.
• dimmke 4y ago
  There was a time where I wanted to work at Meta/Facebook someday - it was actually "next" on my list. I didn't care about the negative press that Facebook got, I felt like they were unfairly targeted because of the 2016 election. And a lot of the engineering work that has come out of Facebook has been excellent, like React/React Native have changed the world. But it's just really hard to see Zuckerberg as a good business leader. When you compare the business to something like Amazon - which has a strong culture around decision making and cultivates a style of leadership in it's executives. So far, it seems like he hit a really good product/market fit and had good timing with Facebook. The strategy since then has basically been to stay ahead by acquiring social platforms that become successful. Until one came along that he couldn't just throw money at and acquire. Oops. And now with the turn on the dime to "Meta" - other companies have been trying to figure out VR for a long time. Apple has reportedly had a VR headset concept going for years and is probably still several years from releasing it. For Amazon to come out with a product like that, it would have to start with a PRFAQ and a lot of vetting just to release the product. To rename the company and start putting all their energy towards it, which letting actual profit centers languish just wouldn't happen. So not only has he not validated this new direction, he's now asking people working comfy FAANG jobs to knuckle down and suffer for it. It works when Elon Musk does it because he can make appeals like "we're going to make humanity multi-planetary" Meta's pitch is "What if we convinced everybody to live in a virtual world controlled entirely by us, where we take 50% of a cut of every digital good that is purchased" - who wants to work 70 hours a week towards making that dystopia a reality? I feel like Epic Games, with Fortnite being basically a social hub for kids and monetizing skins/associating social status with skins is closer to realizing some early version of "the metaverse" then what we've seen from Meta. I think that metaverse behavior is already happening in a lot of ways, it just isn't happening with dorky headsets and probably won't until the tech matures enough to get there.
  • cableshaft 4y ago
    > it just isn't happening with dorky headsets and probably won't until the tech matures enough to get there Zuckerberg is well aware of the technical challenges of VR headsets and they're putting a lot of effort into getting the headsets where they need to be. Seems like they're helping push the technology much further than any other company right now. Here's a 30 minute video where he and Michael Abrash go into the technical challenges, and what they've been doing to address those issues, as well as showing off prototype devices they've been working on[1]. And there's an hour long episode of Adam Savage's Tested series where they get to try the prototypes and go into even more detail[2]. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sThLeiw8h2Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sThLeiw8h2Y [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6AOwDttBsc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6AOwDttBsc
• notacoward 4y ago
  Meta engineering could definitely afford to get a bit leaner, but the question is whether their approach will cut fat or muscle. Having been there, I suspect muscle. There's a strong correlation there between the "impact" that is the be-all and end-all of their performance measurement, churn, and technical debt. If they cut headcount but keep all of the people generating churn and technical debt, there will be more of those per person who's left and fewer of those risking bad reviews to actually keep things running. Some parts of engineering are already cracking under that load, so the results could be pretty bad. Expect more outages. This reminds me a bit of a discussion that used to be common during hard times early in my career: layoffs or pay cuts? It didn't take long for companies to figure out that with a layoff you get to choose who goes, but with pay cuts it will disproportionately be your best people because they have the greatest ability to jump upward. Nobody has that conversation any more, because the answer is known. I suspect in a few years Meta's approach to forced attrition (already practiced at Amazon for years) will also be recognized as bad for the long term.
• Balgair 4y ago
  The second Iron Law of Bureaucracy states: "In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals that the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely." It seems that FB, err Meta, is going to advance the turn of the breaking wheel one rotation. They may be attempting, in good faith, to eliminate the flotsam and jetsam in the bureaucracy, but are more than likely to just eliminate those least connected to internal politics. I would not be surprised if remote-only workers are the most affected, followed by the most 'heads-down' programmers. It's interesting that these steps are occurring with the recent leaving of Sandberg and I wonder if there is any connection.
• sorokod 4y ago
  There is something charming about the use of "realistically", a discovery the CEO just had that "bunch of people at the company who shouldn't be here" as if this had nothing to do with him.
  • 31835843 4y ago
    I mean, isn’t that always the case though? That lots of people don’t belong there? It’s just the law of large numbers + the ever shifting lives of people.
    • sorokod 4y ago
      Don't see why this should always be the case. Also I don't recognize your use of addition and the sense in which you invoke the law of large numbers.
      • 31835843 4y ago
        There is no hiring process that is perfect. Plus, people burn out, organizations shift focus, etc. People who shouldn’t have been hired in the first place make it in, and people whose skills no longer match the job hang on.