> Managers inside Meta “fight” over the pay packets of their employees, which involves “knocking down” the packet of engineers on other teams > Quotas are hand

> Managers inside Meta “fight” over the pay packets of their employees, which involves “knocking down” the packet of engineers on other teams > Quotas are handed down to managers for the splits of the workforce to be put in each ‘bucket’, and the internal politics gets heated as managers try to get their reports into higher buckets. Curious, why can't the management assigns budgets (or resources in general) to individual teams? That is, it is the managers who are responsible for the resources that their teams get, and the budget is tied to the importance of the "team" that each manager owns. In that way, all the performance review will be local to each team. As a manager, I'd be responsible for the output and importance of my team, and I answer to my manager because they will allocate the budget (or resources in general). Recursively, my team members will answer to me and I don't have to justify who gets rewarded by how much to my peers, except that there will be some form of check and balances. How Meta manages their perf review seems to set up their managers to be ineffective.