4 ms·

Here is a response from Matthew Prince, and it sucks in my opinion: https://twitter.com/eastdakota/status/1745697840180191501 https://twitter.com/eastdakota/sta

Here is a response from Matthew Prince, and it sucks in my opinion: https://twitter.com/eastdakota/status/1745697840180191501 https://twitter.com/eastdakota/status/1745697840180191501 "That is just the usual ~40 persons we fire a normal month in the sale org" (And I don't speak the one we usually fire in other departments). "3 months including onboarding is enough to judge people performance". We don't care about holidays despite common sense...

mdip 3y ago
Sales organizations have always been mystifying to me. When I worked at a large, multi-national telecom, I started in desktop support (waaaaay back in the day!). I remember being surprised about the layout of the 10,000 person organization, in general. You had staff, supervisors, managers, directors and vice presidents with some of those roles missing/swapped. Usually its "one or the other, supervisor vs manager" depending on if it was a higher-paid salary (or hourly) position or "the folks who answered the line when you dialed 411". For nearly every organization in the company, turnover was nothing that would raise an eyebrow. The structure was pretty boring, too -- A single VP, maybe two directors, the rest managers/staff. And then there was sales ... In Desktop Support, we spent a lot of time in the various local sales offices. We were either picking up or dropping off a computer over there about 5 times as much despite the office holding 100 employees. Almost everyone had an office. All office locations had the same dress policy, but everyone in the Sales department was 1980s IBM dress policy[0]. And almost everyone in the building was a Vice President. Being a frequent fixture in the office, I got to know a few of the managers and it was explained: the job has high performance quotas which, if met, will make a 6-figure salary very easily (in 2001) but which, if not, you'll be gone -- quickly[1]. There was something of a 400% turn-over (I can't remember if that was per quarter or per year, but I think it was the former). Much like the response from "Matthew Prince", though, the manager I talked to and the two sales-people that were hanging out all agreed "that's just how it works -- you don't have a consistent paycheck month-to-month, anyway, but the money is very good and the turnover means jobs are abundant." It's not a life I would choose, personally, nor am I in agreement with that way of doing things, but that was my take-away. [0] Which wasn't all that surprising; the office had customers come through. [1] The devil's in the details; certain sales jobs had long-tenured people and a long-term high-performer isn't let go after a bad month ... usually, anyway.
- jareklupinski 3y ago
  > you don't have a consistent paycheck month-to-month, anyway, but the money is very good and the turnover means jobs are abundant as long as you have a buffer to lean against (savings, investments, family) it seems like a good bet, but the kinds of psychology necessary to succeed in your new low-risk / high-reward cohort tends to require distorting reality a little more than i'd like for technical fields maybe in my next career, i'd love to try selling art, or luxury cars, or something else that naturally has no datasheet that someone can counter me with
spacemadness 3y ago
He did state in an earnings call that he put most of the blame for falling revenue on the shoulders of the sales team, fired and replaced a bunch of people on the team, and made it clear they were putting more emphasis on sales performance. It seemed unprofessional to me to actually call out an org in an earnings call for underperformance, hence not taking personal responsibility as CEO.
reaperman 3y ago
> "3 months including onboarding is enough to judge people performance" Just adding to the broken record at this point: That’s fine in theory…but then why did this employee not receive any feedback ever letting her know her performance was lagging?

mdip 3y ago

Sales organizations have always been mystifying to me. When I worked at a large, multi-national telecom, I started in desktop support (waaaaay back in the day!). I remember being surprised about the layout of the 10,000 person organization, in general. You had staff, supervisors, managers, directors and vice presidents with some of those roles missing/swapped. Usually its "one or the other, supervisor vs manager" depending on if it was a higher-paid salary (or hourly) position or "the folks who answered the line when you dialed 411". For nearly every organization in the company, turnover was nothing that would raise an eyebrow. The structure was pretty boring, too -- A single VP, maybe two directors, the rest managers/staff. And then there was sales ... In Desktop Support, we spent a lot of time in the various local sales offices. We were either picking up or dropping off a computer over there about 5 times as much despite the office holding 100 employees. Almost everyone had an office. All office locations had the same dress policy, but everyone in the Sales department was 1980s IBM dress policy[0]. And almost everyone in the building was a Vice President. Being a frequent fixture in the office, I got to know a few of the managers and it was explained: the job has high performance quotas which, if met, will make a 6-figure salary very easily (in 2001) but which, if not, you'll be gone -- quickly[1]. There was something of a 400% turn-over (I can't remember if that was per quarter or per year, but I think it was the former). Much like the response from "Matthew Prince", though, the manager I talked to and the two sales-people that were hanging out all agreed "that's just how it works -- you don't have a consistent paycheck month-to-month, anyway, but the money is very good and the turnover means jobs are abundant." It's not a life I would choose, personally, nor am I in agreement with that way of doing things, but that was my take-away. [0] Which wasn't all that surprising; the office had customers come through. [1] The devil's in the details; certain sales jobs had long-tenured people and a long-term high-performer isn't let go after a bad month ... usually, anyway.

jareklupinski 3y ago
> you don't have a consistent paycheck month-to-month, anyway, but the money is very good and the turnover means jobs are abundant as long as you have a buffer to lean against (savings, investments, family) it seems like a good bet, but the kinds of psychology necessary to succeed in your new low-risk / high-reward cohort tends to require distorting reality a little more than i'd like for technical fields maybe in my next career, i'd love to try selling art, or luxury cars, or something else that naturally has no datasheet that someone can counter me with

spacemadness 3y ago

He did state in an earnings call that he put most of the blame for falling revenue on the shoulders of the sales team, fired and replaced a bunch of people on the team, and made it clear they were putting more emphasis on sales performance. It seemed unprofessional to me to actually call out an org in an earnings call for underperformance, hence not taking personal responsibility as CEO.

reaperman 3y ago

> "3 months including onboarding is enough to judge people performance" Just adding to the broken record at this point: That’s fine in theory…but then why did this employee not receive any feedback ever letting her know her performance was lagging?