3 ms·
> It wasn't the bottom or some biased subset that was culled, but a seemingly random selection across bands to hit a target. Are you implying it is better to f
by pedrosorio 4y ago
> It wasn't the bottom or some biased subset that was culled, but a seemingly random selection across bands to hit a target.
Are you implying it is better to fire a random selection than "the bottom"?
- nkozyra 4y agoIt seems they're implying the opposite but I can see how it would be read as "good" in this context.
- bscphil 4y agoThe "we lobbied for our people" is also weird. If at the end of the day $x million in salary has to be cut, and it's meritorious for a company to do it randomly rather than pruning the bottom whatever percent, it's extremely weird to add to that "a subset of people didn't lose their jobs because people in my department liked them". I'd say the best case scenario here is that the "lobbying" had no effect, and the emotional availability of management was just to make everyone feel better.
- wnolens 4y agoCorrect, lobbying had no effect on the immediate employment status of an individual. But we were given an outlet, and through that an explanation of why we lost an essential engineer and friend. I'd like to believe that it had an effect on the management team. If not for them to bear some of the emotional load, then to inform them XYZ project is going to take a major hit and this week or so is a write off for the rest of us.
- kqr 4y agoHypothetically, that might be a way to find out who the true top performers are, the ones that may not show up in quantitative rankings. It would be an awful way to go about it though, so I hope that wasn't the idea.
- wnolens 4y agoIt's better and worse. Performance isn't quantitatively tracked at all times, so firing whoever some low level manager elects is subject to incredible bias, and I think a major lawsuit risk.