4 ms·
>Hard to say if BigHead style devs are being affected here. Annual review ratings aren't quite yet finalized They aren't yet finalized, but pretty damn close.
by VirusNewbie 3y ago
>Hard to say if BigHead style devs are being affected here. Annual review ratings aren't quite yet finalized
They aren't yet finalized, but pretty damn close. Don't you think this probably plays into it? VPs were likely told 'put 6% of your engineers below 'meets expectations', and some VPs probably thought about it and said "actually we have a really weak division, i'd rather axe that, than taking a 6% haircut across the board.
It makes sense, if you have a few teams of rockstars, a division of 'meh', and one weak director that has hired a few weaker managers who also hires weaker engineers, why give everyone the same PiP quota?
- UncleMeat 3y agoFor a number of reasons. 1. This wasn't just entire divisions. I've seen massive cuts on some teams and ticky-tack cuts elsewhere. 2. This was clearly coordinated above the VP level and could not have been just individual unilateral decisions by VPs who saw specific grad numbers coming through. 3. I've seen people who were not low performers get fired in this ticky-tack manner. 4. Nobody on my team was fired, but I sure as hell wasn't told "don't worry about expected distributions of low performers since we'll just cut from elsewhere."
- VirusNewbie 3y agoI mean, it's certainly above my pay grade, but why wouldn't they either take Grad results into account, or at least wait until they could. Another two weeks is not going to make or break someone's yearly budget, and it certainly seems like a good idea to maybe not lay off the person who was about to get "top tier" or whatever it is at google. Second, why take the PR hit and not just crank the PiP quota or something?