4 ms·
6.8% seems like a pretty reasonable target for non-regrettable attrition. GE famously aimed at firing the bottom 10% of performers every year. In Facebook engin
by lacker 3y ago
6.8% seems like a pretty reasonable target for non-regrettable attrition. GE famously aimed at firing the bottom 10% of performers every year. In Facebook engineering management the internal target was 6% IIRC.
It feels a bit paradoxical because there are many 10-person teams with no poor performers that should be fired. Yet if you have an engineering director heading a 150 person department and that department allegedly has no poor performers, that probably indicates a lax culture that accepts poor performance.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- csa 3y ago> It feels a bit paradoxical because there are many 10-person teams with no poor performers that should be fired. These bottom-dwellers are often spread out amongst teams so that there is low-hanging fruit on each team. The conflict happens when multiple managers try to hold on to next year’s sacrificial lamb as well.
- jboy55 3y ago> In Facebook engineering management the internal target was 6% IIRC. I haven't seen a NRA rate enforced at Facebook, however 6% is the target at Amazon.
- okaram 3y agoDoesn't seem unreasonable, as long as it's a soft target and at a large level. When every manager needs to fire one employee every year or two or get fired, it Uber sucks. Any time a manager needs to fire a performing employee, the company dies a little. You start destroying cooperation, and selecting sociopaths as managers.