3 ms·

> "meets most" likely doesn't sound too bad to non-Metamates. Internally it's a pretty bad mark on your record. The kind of newspeak I've heard from multiple f

by piva00 4y ago

> "meets most" likely doesn't sound too bad to non-Metamates. Internally it's a pretty bad mark on your record. The kind of newspeak I've heard from multiple friends and former coworkers that ended up at FB/Meta at some point. Well, the ones that didn't fall into the cult of Mark. It might be because I'm getting older but this is the kind of stuff that makes me want to puke. The co-optation of language to exude an aura of friendliness is absolutely disgusting.

bin_bash 4y ago
Are you talking about "Metamates"—if so I said that ironically. I don't think I've ever heard anyone outside of the execs use that term when they weren't being sarcastic.
- piva00 4y ago
  No, I meant in the case of "meets most" being used in an extremely negative connotation.
  - bin_bash 4y ago
    ah apologies, I'm not sure why I didn't read that correctly the first time. It's wrong to call it "extremely negative" though, my words were "pretty bad". There are 2 levels lower than MM but they're rarely used. MM is a warning—it means you need to improve or you'll likely be put on a PIP.
    - piva00 4y ago
      No worries! I apologise for misrepresenting it as "extremely negative", still with the meaning of "pretty bad" I believe it's a specially disgusting type of language, why use positive-sounding jargon for "underperforming"? What's wrong with using "underperfoming" if that's what "meets most" means? I despise this, the dissonance between a positivity-sounding "meets most" with the actual meaning being "pretty bad" is what I expect from the North Korean regime, or Russia. It's a disgusting type of newspeak/corporatespeak which, admittedly irrationally, boils my blood.
      - bin_bash 4y ago
        There actually is a reason (though you might not like it). The internal docs are pretty open about this, I think I can do a decent job capturing the idea: The idea is they consider themselves to have a very high bar (which I think is largely accurate). They say you “meet most expectations” which means you hit the marks on all but 1 or 2 criteria. It’s not that you’re not good at your job, it’s that that’s not good enough for them. Of course anyone receiving a MM is having a very shitty day despite that. They could use more direct language but I’m not sure it would have any practical difference.
geodel 4y ago
See the comments in this thread and elsewhere about HR related issues and you can gauge how much plain speak is hated. So no wonder companies, HR departments resort to newspeak.
- Firmwarrior 4y ago
  People hate it when they realize they wasted their lives trying to appease some faceless corporate masters, only to be stabbed in the back. It doesn't matter how much friendly-sounding bullshit you slather on if that's what's happening. relevant to the overarching topic: https://dilbert.com/strip/2021-05-24 https://dilbert.com/strip/2021-05-24
ras3022 4y ago
It's basically a 3 star review, the labels don't actually matter. Is a 3 star good? or is it bad? Who knows. It either depending on context. And that's why people don't like it.

by piva00 4y ago

bin_bash 4y ago

Are you talking about "Metamates"—if so I said that ironically. I don't think I've ever heard anyone outside of the execs use that term when they weren't being sarcastic.

piva00 4y ago
No, I meant in the case of "meets most" being used in an extremely negative connotation.
- bin_bash 4y ago
  ah apologies, I'm not sure why I didn't read that correctly the first time. It's wrong to call it "extremely negative" though, my words were "pretty bad". There are 2 levels lower than MM but they're rarely used. MM is a warning—it means you need to improve or you'll likely be put on a PIP.
  - piva00 4y ago
    No worries! I apologise for misrepresenting it as "extremely negative", still with the meaning of "pretty bad" I believe it's a specially disgusting type of language, why use positive-sounding jargon for "underperforming"? What's wrong with using "underperfoming" if that's what "meets most" means? I despise this, the dissonance between a positivity-sounding "meets most" with the actual meaning being "pretty bad" is what I expect from the North Korean regime, or Russia. It's a disgusting type of newspeak/corporatespeak which, admittedly irrationally, boils my blood.
    - bin_bash 4y ago
      There actually is a reason (though you might not like it). The internal docs are pretty open about this, I think I can do a decent job capturing the idea: The idea is they consider themselves to have a very high bar (which I think is largely accurate). They say you “meet most expectations” which means you hit the marks on all but 1 or 2 criteria. It’s not that you’re not good at your job, it’s that that’s not good enough for them. Of course anyone receiving a MM is having a very shitty day despite that. They could use more direct language but I’m not sure it would have any practical difference.

geodel 4y ago

See the comments in this thread and elsewhere about HR related issues and you can gauge how much plain speak is hated. So no wonder companies, HR departments resort to newspeak.

Firmwarrior 4y ago
People hate it when they realize they wasted their lives trying to appease some faceless corporate masters, only to be stabbed in the back. It doesn't matter how much friendly-sounding bullshit you slather on if that's what's happening. relevant to the overarching topic: https://dilbert.com/strip/2021-05-24 https://dilbert.com/strip/2021-05-24

ras3022 4y ago

It's basically a 3 star review, the labels don't actually matter. Is a 3 star good? or is it bad? Who knows. It either depending on context. And that's why people don't like it.