5 ms·

In some organizations, you want to hire big going into the hiring freeze, so that once the layoffs start (and you get told from higher up, "cut x%), you can kee

In some organizations, you want to hire big going into the hiring freeze, so that once the layoffs start (and you get told from higher up, "cut x%), you can keep the people you actually care about. Insanity from the point of view of the organization, but rational from the point of view of the mid-level manager. Don't know if this is what happened at FB, but it happens in some places.

bhawks 4y ago
Amazon actually has an 'unregretted attrition rate' metric that it holds managers to. Essentially they are expected to shed a percentage of employees annually. This metric gets gamed as "hire to fire" to keep your core team intact. https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/amazons-controversial-hire-to-fire-practice-reveals-a-brutal-truth-about-management.html https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/amazons-controversial-hire-to...
- pcurve 4y ago
  "The problem is, that's not what's happening. Instead, Amazon managers are hiring people they otherwise wouldn't, or shouldn't, just so they can later fire them to hit their goal. " Oh god, this is horrific. :-/
  - piva00 4y ago
    And at the same time completely expected as per Goodhart's Law.
  - User23 4y ago
    Just to play devil’s advocate why is that horrific? Presumably the lack of transparency? Would it be morally acceptable if the hiring manager were honest about the scenario and the prospective employee knew to discount equity comp and focus on cash comp and being ready to find a new role? Edit: Consider if you were offered 200k per annum plus some irrelevant RSUs a year to be fired in 6 months, would you really be offended to take that 100k if you knew up front that those were the terms of the deal? Point being that the arrangement is only immoral if it's dishonest, otherwise it's just basically a gift for reasons that are perhaps odd, but within the giver's rights.
    - eropple 4y ago
      The devil really doesn't need more advocates.
      - cercatrova 4y ago
        I hate this phrase and I'm not sure why it's getting so much more popular. It's just pithy because it concerns an unliked figure, a devil. We could easily say instead "looking at the other side of the coin" but no one would then say "the coin doesn't need more sides" because that wouldn't make any more sense.
        eropple 4y ago
        That isn't true, though. The phrase "devil's advocate" almost always refers to taking the other side of an issue where doing so is understood to be negative. When used to low-key argue in favor of the position because one believes in shitty things--and it's usually pretty obvious!--the user of the phrase is merely telling on themselves. "Well, maybe shitty people doing shitty things is good, actually??" does no one any favors.
        cercatrova 4y ago
        No, the phrase is most often used to simply mean, "the other side of this discussion." In fact I almost never see it to mean what you said, to take the side of the negative side of an issue where said negative side would condemn one to be a "shitty person." It seems again that the phrasing creates this pervasive idea that the person using the phrase is using it in a fully intended negative way when it's just said off hand without thought. That is to say, it is replaceable with a phrase like "looking at the other side of the coin," as I initially stated. Examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33544320 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33544320 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6315113#6315483 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6315113#6315483 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2564385 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2564385
        freedomben 4y ago
  - PaulHoule 4y ago
    Is that why just a rumor that you know how to code can lead AMZN recruiters to call you every week?
  - empathy_m 4y ago
    Um - if you are retired, can you take an Amazon job for a couple of months every year or two with the express goal of collecting the paychecks until you contribute to the manager's unregretted attrition rate?
    - pcurve 4y ago
      I hope you're joking.
    - gloryjulio 4y ago
      ura means u won't be hired again. so it's a one time thing
      - samspenc 4y ago
        That's also why Amazon is running out of people to hire, because it hires and fires people so fast: https://nypost.com/2022/06/17/amazon-could-run-out-of-people-to-hire-in-us-by-2024-report/ https://nypost.com/2022/06/17/amazon-could-run-out-of-people... "Amazon is sounding the alarm over an internal memo which estimates that the retail giant could run out of people to hire and man their US-based warehouses within the next 18 months, according to a report. ... “If we continue business as usual, Amazon will deplete the available labor supply in the US network by 2024,” according to the memo cited by Recode."
        vba616 4y ago
        Seems like I have been hearing (FM radio) and seeing (online) ads touting Amazon jobs like in the warehouses.
        w0m 4y ago
        I assume the 'hire to fire' metrics are for engineering; not warehouse. Two different labor pools. I assumed the warehouse attrition rates were due to the work being taxing (and audited). It pays well but you can get much more relaxed atmospheres for not much less $$ if you look.
    - killingtime74 4y ago
dixie_land 4y ago
Ahh the good ol' hire to fire
washywashy 4y ago
I would say “hiring big” in the context you mention is nowhere near the level of hiring mentioned in the parent comment.
SanjayMehta 4y ago
An additional role for "The Project Scapegoat" in Dilbert. https://www.dilbert.com/strip/1999-03-15 https://www.dilbert.com/strip/1999-03-15
mupuff1234 4y ago
I doubt middle managers are coming from that perspective, most likely it's just "empire building", i.e. grabbing all the headcount that you can get as that gives you more clout and influence ("oh X had Y people under him, we have to promote him !")

bhawks 4y ago

Amazon actually has an 'unregretted attrition rate' metric that it holds managers to. Essentially they are expected to shed a percentage of employees annually. This metric gets gamed as "hire to fire" to keep your core team intact. https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/amazons-controversial-hire-to-fire-practice-reveals-a-brutal-truth-about-management.html https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/amazons-controversial-hire-to...

pcurve 4y ago
"The problem is, that's not what's happening. Instead, Amazon managers are hiring people they otherwise wouldn't, or shouldn't, just so they can later fire them to hit their goal. " Oh god, this is horrific. :-/
- piva00 4y ago
  And at the same time completely expected as per Goodhart's Law.
- User23 4y ago
  Just to play devil’s advocate why is that horrific? Presumably the lack of transparency? Would it be morally acceptable if the hiring manager were honest about the scenario and the prospective employee knew to discount equity comp and focus on cash comp and being ready to find a new role? Edit: Consider if you were offered 200k per annum plus some irrelevant RSUs a year to be fired in 6 months, would you really be offended to take that 100k if you knew up front that those were the terms of the deal? Point being that the arrangement is only immoral if it's dishonest, otherwise it's just basically a gift for reasons that are perhaps odd, but within the giver's rights.
  - eropple 4y ago
    The devil really doesn't need more advocates.
    - cercatrova 4y ago
      I hate this phrase and I'm not sure why it's getting so much more popular. It's just pithy because it concerns an unliked figure, a devil. We could easily say instead "looking at the other side of the coin" but no one would then say "the coin doesn't need more sides" because that wouldn't make any more sense.
      - eropple 4y ago
        That isn't true, though. The phrase "devil's advocate" almost always refers to taking the other side of an issue where doing so is understood to be negative. When used to low-key argue in favor of the position because one believes in shitty things--and it's usually pretty obvious!--the user of the phrase is merely telling on themselves. "Well, maybe shitty people doing shitty things is good, actually??" does no one any favors.
        cercatrova 4y ago
        No, the phrase is most often used to simply mean, "the other side of this discussion." In fact I almost never see it to mean what you said, to take the side of the negative side of an issue where said negative side would condemn one to be a "shitty person." It seems again that the phrasing creates this pervasive idea that the person using the phrase is using it in a fully intended negative way when it's just said off hand without thought. That is to say, it is replaceable with a phrase like "looking at the other side of the coin," as I initially stated. Examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33544320 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33544320 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6315113#6315483 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6315113#6315483 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2564385 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2564385
        freedomben 4y ago
- PaulHoule 4y ago
  Is that why just a rumor that you know how to code can lead AMZN recruiters to call you every week?
- empathy_m 4y ago
  Um - if you are retired, can you take an Amazon job for a couple of months every year or two with the express goal of collecting the paychecks until you contribute to the manager's unregretted attrition rate?
  - pcurve 4y ago
    I hope you're joking.
  - gloryjulio 4y ago
    ura means u won't be hired again. so it's a one time thing
    - samspenc 4y ago
      That's also why Amazon is running out of people to hire, because it hires and fires people so fast: https://nypost.com/2022/06/17/amazon-could-run-out-of-people-to-hire-in-us-by-2024-report/ https://nypost.com/2022/06/17/amazon-could-run-out-of-people... "Amazon is sounding the alarm over an internal memo which estimates that the retail giant could run out of people to hire and man their US-based warehouses within the next 18 months, according to a report. ... “If we continue business as usual, Amazon will deplete the available labor supply in the US network by 2024,” according to the memo cited by Recode."
      - vba616 4y ago
        Seems like I have been hearing (FM radio) and seeing (online) ads touting Amazon jobs like in the warehouses.
      - w0m 4y ago
        I assume the 'hire to fire' metrics are for engineering; not warehouse. Two different labor pools. I assumed the warehouse attrition rates were due to the work being taxing (and audited). It pays well but you can get much more relaxed atmospheres for not much less $$ if you look.
  - killingtime74 4y ago

dixie_land 4y ago

Ahh the good ol' hire to fire

washywashy 4y ago

I would say “hiring big” in the context you mention is nowhere near the level of hiring mentioned in the parent comment.

SanjayMehta 4y ago

An additional role for "The Project Scapegoat" in Dilbert. https://www.dilbert.com/strip/1999-03-15 https://www.dilbert.com/strip/1999-03-15

mupuff1234 4y ago

I doubt middle managers are coming from that perspective, most likely it's just "empire building", i.e. grabbing all the headcount that you can get as that gives you more clout and influence ("oh X had Y people under him, we have to promote him !")