6 ms·

"managing out" This is about the worst kind of doublespeak I have ever heard. It is actively malicious, the very thought of it brings images of purposeful abus

"managing out" This is about the worst kind of doublespeak I have ever heard. It is actively malicious, the very thought of it brings images of purposeful abuse of employees. Seriously, just fire people.

fortylove 4y ago
AKA "unregretted attrition"
louistsi 4y ago
Doesn't always mean the same thing, "managing out" could mean firing, but it could also mean creating an inhospitable environment for work, like demotion, allocating drudge work, removing responsibilities, etc. To manage them out of the company "by their own choice", which is unfortunately just as bad if not worse.
- bayraktar 4y ago
  It could also mean creating an inhospitable environment for work, like demotion, allocating drudge work, removing responsibilities, etc. Right - it's actually far worse than outright firing or laying off people. As in, genuinely harmful to people from a psychological (and hence physical) point of view. All so the company can save a few dollars, and hit certain quarterly targets a bit sooner. That's why there's a name for it (since long before the "quiet" meme), and legal precedents that are supposed to prevent companies from doing this (if any of them would take heed, which of course they won't): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal So the question to our friend thrwawayacc up above is -- OK, so this is what the director told you to do (and thanks for for sharing, BTW). But are you actually going to -- go through with what you were told to do? Are are you going to tell these people at the director level some version of: I understand your concerns, and the financial position that the company in. But at the end of the day, this isn't the right way to go about conducting what everyone can plainly see it as -- a layoff. Ultimately, if we go this route, it will be harmful to the company's reputation and long-term growth -- but more importantly, it will cause genuine harm to people who, until now, have been considered part of the Amazon Family. If Corporate insists on going this route, there's no way I can stop them of course. However, for my part, in my role, I will not be be able to participate in this extremely ill-advised course of action. This is your moment. So what's it going to be?
  - gamjQZnHT53AMa 4y ago
    Sounds like you're suggesting to him that he gets himself put on the "managed out" list. I get your point completely, and agree with it to an extent. But if I put myself in that position, what would I do? I'd like to think I'd take the honorable approach you suggested, but I've also got bills to pay, kids to support, plans I want to achieve. Getting myself "managed out" at the expense of all of those things would be hugely problematic.
    - ohgodplsno 4y ago
      If you're a manager at Amazon (which is already known for being barely a level above sweat shops in terms of employee treatment), and even more if you're part of their tech (which, if you're posting on HN, you most likely are), you're making so much money that if you can't afford to spend 6 months without a job, you're frankly irresponsible with your cash.
    - bayraktar 4y ago
      Getting myself "managed out" at the expense of all of those things would be hugely problematic. Agreed - and corporate life often gets that way. But another way of looking at the payoff matrix might be: "I've got kids to support - and that means having parents they can trust, and look up to in this chaotic and morally ambivalent world. Even if it means we might have to work a year or two more before being able to retire more comfortably, or we might not get to take that vacation to Tulum this year."
      - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
        >I've got kids to support - and that means having parents they can trust, and look up to in this chaotic and morally ambivalent world. that's a high level of Maslow's hierarchy there, especially in the U.S with few support nets heading into what will probably be a really bad recession.
        mrguyorama 4y ago
        If you work in this industry and don't have at least a year's pay squirreled away, where the hell is all your money going?
- sidlls 4y ago
  That would be “constructive termination”. It’s too bad the deck is stacked against labor such that it is so hard to actually prove. But that’s why I keep a detailed journal of my activities and make copies of the overwhelmingly positive peer reviews I receive at performance reviews.
- ohgodplsno 4y ago
  Yep, it's exactly what I'm saying. Managing out people is the kind of thing that ought to be punished by law (and in many sensible countries, is). Just fire people.
- wikfwikf 4y ago
  It doesn't have to be this evil (although I have no reason to believe it won't at Amazon). A good manager can do some 'managing out' simply by communicating to her team that there are reduced opportunities for promotion or new projects coming up, and that they may be layoffs. At any time in any workplace a certain fraction of people are actively looking for a new job, and another, usually much larger fraction are open to a move, might be hearing from recruiters, etc. A manager can create a mood of "if you have a decent offer, you should take it" without making people's lives miserable.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    If everyone is roughly performant this works. But if they are not, you may lose the good performers and keep the bad.
    - HughJazz22 4y ago
      If you put corporate interests over the individual ones, your point sounds reasonable. I'd personally prefer equality in such conversations. I believe corporate can survive with mediocre performers. Just like many of us live with not so great companies we work in everyday.
- dsq 4y ago
  I recall reading somewhere that this is the way orgs get rid of tenured workers. They can’t be fired outright, so the org creates a lot of little micro-aggressions that cause them to yearn for release from the torment.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- antihero 4y ago
  Possibly one of the greatest examples of "Lawful Evil"
Liquix 4y ago
Firing means press attention, severance packages, and accountability. None of these are desired by the business. It is absolutely malicious.
sideshowb 4y ago
It genuinely sounds like a synonym for "constructive dismissal". Makes me wonder how they avoid being sued ?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- d1sxeyes 4y ago
  In the US, there's no federal law on constructive dismissal so there are variations, however, generally, constructive dismissal is not always the same as unfair dismissal, although we most often hear the term come up in conversations about an unfair constructive dismissal. There are also a significant number of ways you can 'manage someone out' which are not any more 'constructive dismissal' than 'quiet quitting' is 'constructive resignation'. For example, reducing flexibility in things like lateness policies, shift swaps, holidays, etc. is likely to be unpopular, but as long as it's applied fairly across all employees, would not likely be found as unfair, but may well result in people quitting.
  - sideshowb 4y ago
    Ok fair, if you're being nasty to everyone it's not discrimination at least
- rchaud 4y ago
  They get sued, the cases will usually be settled out of court.
antupis 4y ago
Long run it also bad for company because best people usually leave first this kind situations and those people who can get another job stay so dead sea effect sets in https://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis-the-dead-sea-effect/ https://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis-the-...
- gsinclair 4y ago
  can —> can’t ?
crispyambulance 4y ago
I've long felt it was a pity that (in most places) employees and employers could not just have honest discussions about career path, suitability, and deliberate planned exits which are a smooth transition for everyone involved. Instead it's just thick layers of bullshit during performance review time or people getting blindsided by a layoff or a fake PIP. From the employee side, one can't simply express what they need out of a job and folks are forced to just look for something better and then announce they're leaving with a 2 week notice. Ironically, companies spare no expense when it comes to turgid, grinding performance eval exercises but ALWAYS kick honest discussions to the side. At least facebook, it seems (?), is just cutting a bunch of folks rapidly rather than doing stuff like "managing out". That's better than the typical corporate 2-face behaviors.
- badpun 4y ago
  Employment is a partially adversarial relationship. Both parties want to get the most of out their counterparties, while giving the least (or, at least, there's enough people and companies with such mindset, that it defines the game). Hence, honesty on either side doesn't pay off. It's smarter to play your cards close to the vest.
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
    That’s never been true in my decade of employment. You just have to avoid working for companies/people with no ethic. I personally always avoid American companies for exemple because, well to put it frankly, American employment culture is trash.
    - hirvi74 4y ago
      Do non-US companies tend to hire non-US employees? I would seriously consider working remote for a European company if I could.

fortylove 4y ago

AKA "unregretted attrition"

louistsi 4y ago

Doesn't always mean the same thing, "managing out" could mean firing, but it could also mean creating an inhospitable environment for work, like demotion, allocating drudge work, removing responsibilities, etc. To manage them out of the company "by their own choice", which is unfortunately just as bad if not worse.

bayraktar 4y ago
It could also mean creating an inhospitable environment for work, like demotion, allocating drudge work, removing responsibilities, etc. Right - it's actually far worse than outright firing or laying off people. As in, genuinely harmful to people from a psychological (and hence physical) point of view. All so the company can save a few dollars, and hit certain quarterly targets a bit sooner. That's why there's a name for it (since long before the "quiet" meme), and legal precedents that are supposed to prevent companies from doing this (if any of them would take heed, which of course they won't): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal So the question to our friend thrwawayacc up above is -- OK, so this is what the director told you to do (and thanks for for sharing, BTW). But are you actually going to -- go through with what you were told to do? Are are you going to tell these people at the director level some version of: I understand your concerns, and the financial position that the company in. But at the end of the day, this isn't the right way to go about conducting what everyone can plainly see it as -- a layoff. Ultimately, if we go this route, it will be harmful to the company's reputation and long-term growth -- but more importantly, it will cause genuine harm to people who, until now, have been considered part of the Amazon Family. If Corporate insists on going this route, there's no way I can stop them of course. However, for my part, in my role, I will not be be able to participate in this extremely ill-advised course of action. This is your moment. So what's it going to be?
- gamjQZnHT53AMa 4y ago
  Sounds like you're suggesting to him that he gets himself put on the "managed out" list. I get your point completely, and agree with it to an extent. But if I put myself in that position, what would I do? I'd like to think I'd take the honorable approach you suggested, but I've also got bills to pay, kids to support, plans I want to achieve. Getting myself "managed out" at the expense of all of those things would be hugely problematic.
  - ohgodplsno 4y ago
    If you're a manager at Amazon (which is already known for being barely a level above sweat shops in terms of employee treatment), and even more if you're part of their tech (which, if you're posting on HN, you most likely are), you're making so much money that if you can't afford to spend 6 months without a job, you're frankly irresponsible with your cash.
  - bayraktar 4y ago
    Getting myself "managed out" at the expense of all of those things would be hugely problematic. Agreed - and corporate life often gets that way. But another way of looking at the payoff matrix might be: "I've got kids to support - and that means having parents they can trust, and look up to in this chaotic and morally ambivalent world. Even if it means we might have to work a year or two more before being able to retire more comfortably, or we might not get to take that vacation to Tulum this year."
    - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
      >I've got kids to support - and that means having parents they can trust, and look up to in this chaotic and morally ambivalent world. that's a high level of Maslow's hierarchy there, especially in the U.S with few support nets heading into what will probably be a really bad recession.
      - mrguyorama 4y ago
        If you work in this industry and don't have at least a year's pay squirreled away, where the hell is all your money going?
sidlls 4y ago
That would be “constructive termination”. It’s too bad the deck is stacked against labor such that it is so hard to actually prove. But that’s why I keep a detailed journal of my activities and make copies of the overwhelmingly positive peer reviews I receive at performance reviews.
ohgodplsno 4y ago
Yep, it's exactly what I'm saying. Managing out people is the kind of thing that ought to be punished by law (and in many sensible countries, is). Just fire people.
wikfwikf 4y ago
It doesn't have to be this evil (although I have no reason to believe it won't at Amazon). A good manager can do some 'managing out' simply by communicating to her team that there are reduced opportunities for promotion or new projects coming up, and that they may be layoffs. At any time in any workplace a certain fraction of people are actively looking for a new job, and another, usually much larger fraction are open to a move, might be hearing from recruiters, etc. A manager can create a mood of "if you have a decent offer, you should take it" without making people's lives miserable.
- bombcar 4y ago
  If everyone is roughly performant this works. But if they are not, you may lose the good performers and keep the bad.
  - HughJazz22 4y ago
    If you put corporate interests over the individual ones, your point sounds reasonable. I'd personally prefer equality in such conversations. I believe corporate can survive with mediocre performers. Just like many of us live with not so great companies we work in everyday.
dsq 4y ago
I recall reading somewhere that this is the way orgs get rid of tenured workers. They can’t be fired outright, so the org creates a lot of little micro-aggressions that cause them to yearn for release from the torment.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
antihero 4y ago
Possibly one of the greatest examples of "Lawful Evil"

Liquix 4y ago

Firing means press attention, severance packages, and accountability. None of these are desired by the business. It is absolutely malicious.

sideshowb 4y ago

It genuinely sounds like a synonym for "constructive dismissal". Makes me wonder how they avoid being sued ?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
d1sxeyes 4y ago
In the US, there's no federal law on constructive dismissal so there are variations, however, generally, constructive dismissal is not always the same as unfair dismissal, although we most often hear the term come up in conversations about an unfair constructive dismissal. There are also a significant number of ways you can 'manage someone out' which are not any more 'constructive dismissal' than 'quiet quitting' is 'constructive resignation'. For example, reducing flexibility in things like lateness policies, shift swaps, holidays, etc. is likely to be unpopular, but as long as it's applied fairly across all employees, would not likely be found as unfair, but may well result in people quitting.
- sideshowb 4y ago
  Ok fair, if you're being nasty to everyone it's not discrimination at least
rchaud 4y ago
They get sued, the cases will usually be settled out of court.

antupis 4y ago

Long run it also bad for company because best people usually leave first this kind situations and those people who can get another job stay so dead sea effect sets in https://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis-the-dead-sea-effect/ https://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis-the-...

gsinclair 4y ago
can —> can’t ?

crispyambulance 4y ago

I've long felt it was a pity that (in most places) employees and employers could not just have honest discussions about career path, suitability, and deliberate planned exits which are a smooth transition for everyone involved. Instead it's just thick layers of bullshit during performance review time or people getting blindsided by a layoff or a fake PIP. From the employee side, one can't simply express what they need out of a job and folks are forced to just look for something better and then announce they're leaving with a 2 week notice. Ironically, companies spare no expense when it comes to turgid, grinding performance eval exercises but ALWAYS kick honest discussions to the side. At least facebook, it seems (?), is just cutting a bunch of folks rapidly rather than doing stuff like "managing out". That's better than the typical corporate 2-face behaviors.

badpun 4y ago
Employment is a partially adversarial relationship. Both parties want to get the most of out their counterparties, while giving the least (or, at least, there's enough people and companies with such mindset, that it defines the game). Hence, honesty on either side doesn't pay off. It's smarter to play your cards close to the vest.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  That’s never been true in my decade of employment. You just have to avoid working for companies/people with no ethic. I personally always avoid American companies for exemple because, well to put it frankly, American employment culture is trash.
  - hirvi74 4y ago
    Do non-US companies tend to hire non-US employees? I would seriously consider working remote for a European company if I could.