3 ms·
Yeah I don’t know, this isn’t to vouch for Amazon’s “planned attrition” quota at all but it seems regular “trimming of under performers” is better than “all at
by dieselgate 4y ago
Yeah I don’t know, this isn’t to vouch for Amazon’s “planned attrition” quota at all but it seems regular “trimming of under performers” is better than “all at once witch hunt”.
If I think about the “under performers” at my workplace I wish they were gone long ago (from a work standpoint, this isn’t a personal stab).
But all of the above creates a pretty hostile work environment, probably.
And to be a contrarian I have also worked at a place (non eng) that did maintain public (but anonymous) employee rankings (based on “customer” feedback [kind of complicated to explain in brief])- it was still a decent place to work. When it comes to this topic I relate to academic GPA - it’s a flawed and imperfect system but from a business/Org perspective what other options are there?
I wouldn’t want to work in that environment myself but what do workers at Meta or Amzn expect?
- legitster 4y agoYeah it's funny. When I worked fast food the workers always kept their own s**list of coworkers they wished would get fired. In a crunchtime environment, underperforming makes everyone else shoulder more load. Ironically it was always the owner/managers who insisted on keeping around the ne'er-do-wells in hopes that their performance would improve. Most corporate places I have worked at have generally done a good job giving me reliable performance reports (I've never been on a PIP but I hear it's incredibly common). Like, no one should ever be blindsided that they are underperforming.
- picsao 4y ago