4 ms·

do they have mandatory stack ranking?

by pas 4y ago

hef19898 4y ago
I said they are borderline ruthless, didn't I? So yes, as far as I know they do. Fun, if they try to use it in Europe so., because usually you have to pay people make them leave over here. Reasons for termination are hard to come by. Lately so, a much as I disagree with stack ranking and so on, I came to realize that the oposite of handling those things (pretending to be ultra-nice and so on) just moves the backstabbing to a different room, one without any rules. So yeah, in a sense Amazon is doing a lot of things right, as hard as it is for individuals. Edit: Amazon did have stack ranking while I was there, no idea if still do, but I assume yes.
- pas 4y ago
  > usually you have to pay people make them leave over here Dunno. I think that's just how most companies do it, because HR is a shitshow all over the world. (Because it's hard and concentrating it into a department staffed with skilled HR professionals just seems to "solve it" even if the cost is enormous, and one management fix for this deficiency is "stack ranking" in the US. Diffuses legal responsibility, easier to defend, mechanical, etc.) "Managing out" people works, but that would mean taking responsibility for the decision. And it's possible - even in the so-called socialist hellscape of Europe - to agree upfront with the employee that the employer can terminate the employment without any wrongdoing. (Even if there's a union, the employer has to agree on this with the union, but employers don't do this, because it would mean taking responsibility for performance, and that would raise a lot of annoying questions throughout the whole hierarcy.)
shapefrog 4y ago
> mandatory stack ranking Everywhere I have worked had this stupid system. - Sold $10mil on your target of $1mil, bottom of your team because Jane and the other 8 members sold $11mil, culled as one of the bottom 5%. Other department where they all missed their targets, bottom 5% fired and the rest stay.

do they have mandatory stack ranking?

by pas 4y ago

do they have mandatory stack ranking?

hef19898 4y ago

I said they are borderline ruthless, didn't I? So yes, as far as I know they do. Fun, if they try to use it in Europe so., because usually you have to pay people make them leave over here. Reasons for termination are hard to come by. Lately so, a much as I disagree with stack ranking and so on, I came to realize that the oposite of handling those things (pretending to be ultra-nice and so on) just moves the backstabbing to a different room, one without any rules. So yeah, in a sense Amazon is doing a lot of things right, as hard as it is for individuals. Edit: Amazon did have stack ranking while I was there, no idea if still do, but I assume yes.

pas 4y ago
> usually you have to pay people make them leave over here Dunno. I think that's just how most companies do it, because HR is a shitshow all over the world. (Because it's hard and concentrating it into a department staffed with skilled HR professionals just seems to "solve it" even if the cost is enormous, and one management fix for this deficiency is "stack ranking" in the US. Diffuses legal responsibility, easier to defend, mechanical, etc.) "Managing out" people works, but that would mean taking responsibility for the decision. And it's possible - even in the so-called socialist hellscape of Europe - to agree upfront with the employee that the employer can terminate the employment without any wrongdoing. (Even if there's a union, the employer has to agree on this with the union, but employers don't do this, because it would mean taking responsibility for performance, and that would raise a lot of annoying questions throughout the whole hierarcy.)

shapefrog 4y ago

> mandatory stack ranking Everywhere I have worked had this stupid system. - Sold $10mil on your target of $1mil, bottom of your team because Jane and the other 8 members sold $11mil, culled as one of the bottom 5%. Other department where they all missed their targets, bottom 5% fired and the rest stay.