Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

jphamlore t1_j1aa8qi wrote

Stack ranking for eternal layoffs.

205

pessimistoptimist t1_j1aaj5k wrote

Could always save a ton of cash if they would stop paying millions to CEOs and executives and giving them golden parachutes when they fail. I have yet to see upper management come close to acheiving what they expect of people doing the actual work. Most if not all would fall into the substandard performance category on the performance review.

93

traildroid t1_j1ag6fg wrote

I fired Google and use Graphene OS. They don't pay me enough for siphoning my data.

8

whatistheformat t1_j1amhtt wrote

Sure seems hinky from a legal standpoint to plan to layoff employees months in advance for "low performance."

78

favouriteitem t1_j1angg2 wrote

How so? Is Google able to see the future and know that more of their employees will perform poorly next year? (these are rhetorical questions BTW).

More likely they are already trying to find reasons to get rid of people...

37

tdogg241 t1_j1aov24 wrote

Now would be a fine time for Google workers to unionize...

8

blimpyway t1_j1aqukr wrote

Couldn't that be a natural consequence of having more employees next year?

1

Rainbike80 t1_j1artd7 wrote

Idiots got caught up in a tulip craze for talent. None of the executives are going to take responsibility.

4

fgtrtd007 t1_j1aueu7 wrote

Interesting way of saying "step it up" maybe?

All I know is my search results suck ass now

8

ThePhantomTrollbooth t1_j1axenn wrote

Replying to pessimistoptimist (#1,012,956)

They give a bunch of departments the same mission of controlling costs and maximizing profit, then can’t figure out why their organization is a dysfunctional mess. Each department ends up cutting resources that serve other ones in efforts to boost their own numbers. The most profitable ones get all the resources thrown at them, and everyone else is supposed to do more with less.

43

Accomplished_Ad6571 t1_j1b07hn wrote

Why do all these companies love to drop shit like this during the holidays…can’t this wait until the second week of January? Damn Grinches.

173

anti-torque t1_j1b6o99 wrote

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

3

an_undecided_voter t1_j1b6sd3 wrote

Edge is now a much better browser than Chrome. Just putting it out there.

−1

curious_geoff t1_j1bdbiz wrote

Glad to see all these entitled tech assholes finally enter the actual labour market the rest of us have been dealing with for decades

−8

bbzzdd t1_j1betut wrote

In comparison to other big tech companies, Google has a pretty low bar for tolerating bad performers. Their hiring process is tough (for engineers at least) but once you're in it's pretty hard to get fired. Source: Big tech hiring manager.

14

Blastie2 t1_j1bj5c1 wrote

It really is amazing how much mileage we're getting out of the same story repackaged with different headlines. First, the extra 6% in the second to bottom tier were sure to be fired. Then someone did math and concluded that Google had decided to lay off 10,000 employees. Now, Google is telling it's employees that they're at risk of lower ratings. All because they moved to a new performance management system eight months ago that preserved the bottom 2% lowest rating, consolidated the next lowest rating from 30% to 6% as a way to focus more resources on low performers, and made the middle rating the default for 60% of employees.

19

W2WageSlave t1_j1bkqre wrote

Just following Intel, right? Bottom 10% will get PIP's no matter what. No bonus, no RSU, and easy chop when they don't deliver on impossible metrics.

Wake me up when a 1400 sqft rabbit hutch in Palo Alto costs less than $1M.

1

Odd-Frame9724 t1_j1blo15 wrote

This does suck

What will happen is stack ranking and those in the lowest % will be laid off with severance of some sort and the ability to get unemployment

This will make it harder to attract talent, but they probably think they have too many employees

Written on mobile.

2

ddarner t1_j1bpzej wrote

This 100% didnt happen. They introduced a new system called G.R.A.D.

76

Rindan t1_j1brrtf wrote

Replying to whatistheformat (#1,013,997)

I'm what way? A company sees that their books look fucked and warning that they are going to start purging based upon performance sounds long in advance sounds.... like the right way to do it. What's the legal issue?

9

ThisGuyyyShnider t1_j1bs72d wrote

Meritocracy is not new. Tech have just spent a bunch of years making record profits so the performance management did not keep up with the constant stream of new hires. Now it’s time to get back managing out lower talent that is not showing signs of improvement.

2

crash41301 t1_j1bsyxa wrote

Replying to neuronexmachina (#1,017,532)

Generally when people mention this what they are referring to is the seo industry has largely figured out how to game the google algo to get their content to rank high up. This results in content that might not be what you found as useful up high because it more perfectly matches the algo score. In theory with a perfect algo that seo gamification would result in people making better and more useful pages to win seo. In practice, no algo is perfect and so we get what we get.

3

kwansolo t1_j1bvbpm wrote

“We need to cut workforce so suddenly 6% of you are magically underperforming”

3

MrOddBawl t1_j1bx1r3 wrote

Replying to pessimistoptimist (#1,012,956)

This is what infuriates me about basically ever C-suite I've worked with. I've been in meetings with a CEO sitting in his own hot tub discussing with me how important it was for our staff to be back in the office during covid. Not him though, he already works so many hours he came be bothered to come to the office.

I had one CEO who was so bad he destroyed our customer base and ballooned our annual turnover rate to 87% and these were white collar jobs before him it was 7%. He was eventually fired and given 2.5 million for his failure and now works for a company that TRAINS CEOS FOR SUCCESS. makes me puke in my mouth just thinking about it. We could of put a cardboard cutout in an office as a CEO, performed better and gave his massive salary as a pay increase for everyone.

21

thelegendofthefalls t1_j1bxvsk wrote

They badly need to cut headcount, they have far too many laggards operating within that organisation as it is, because the system as it has been set up for the longest time has allowed for it. This will hopefully snap Google out of its funk.

−1

DeliriousPrecarious t1_j1bznoa wrote

This seems to imply that 60 to 70 percent of employees are average, 20 odd percent are exceptional and the remainder are low performers.

That sounds about right for basically any org...

3

anti-torque t1_j1c097i wrote

Replying to RunninADorito (#1,017,894)

Seriously?

The hardship would be selling an inferior product over time, just because one can.

How deflating must it be to work for that?

I get it. Some get a paycheck and clock it like Big Ben. But the search service is gone.

−5

Secunda_Son t1_j1c203z wrote

This is a cute way of saying that they want to lay off more people to juice their margin but okay.

1

dark_brandon_20k t1_j1ccxth wrote

Got to raise the metrics so there is always a bottom 15% worried about being fired!

0

Mullenwasright6969 t1_j1cfs87 wrote

Replying to Rindan (#1,017,551)

There's also a bunch of bloat at alot of large tech cos. Either useless middle managers, project/product managers that don't actually do anything (see the "Riley Rojas" clip), teams building competing products internally cause the vps of those depts are trying to self fellate

5

Mullenwasright6969 t1_j1cg5u4 wrote

Replying to tdogg241 (#1,014,212)

Their engineers get paid too much that you probably couldn't convince them to unionize. Even a lot of their other Corp roles get paid a lot. Sales, recruiting and customer support will usually get the shaft.

And if they did unionize, Google could easily shift some of those roles to their overseas offices without it looking like they're outsourcing since it's still google teams doing that work.

1

bordumb t1_j1cr1ra wrote

How can more of them be at risk of low performance before they’ve even performed.

This is obviously the CEO saying:

We’re going to find more things to blame on you and this will leas to your termination.

1

Konras t1_j1ctqgb wrote

That sounds like something a slave master would say.

0

BuckyDuster t1_j1cz08a wrote

Nobody can work at 150% output continuously. Burn out is inevitable and always takes its toll

1

MayaSam521 t1_j1dcy2y wrote

Y’all act like there aren’t alot of people at big companies that aren’t deadweight.

1

Industrial_Jedi t1_j1deflj wrote

In California at least, if you are fired for low performance or quit you aren't eligible for unemployment. If you are let go through no fault of your own then you can collect unemployment insurance. The unemployment insurance premiums payed by the employer are partially based on the number of former employees collecting unemployment. I'm sure that doesn't come into play here though, their performance reviews are solely to help in the employee develop professionally, no other purpose. Just ask them. /s

2

MaybeExisting8229 t1_j1dkul0 wrote

They ones who are dying to go in and innovate fail to get in. The ones that go in fail to give a shit. The irony.

2

modestgorillaz t1_j1dlhip wrote

Is it just me or is the tech bubble kind of popping? Facebook is doing tons of layoffs, twitter’s thing, now google? Hard times around the corner?

2

traildroid t1_j1dqgr6 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,019,655)

Replacing stock Google Android with GrapheneOS (Pixel devices only) is not like jailbreaking. You completely replace the OS and lose Google services. It's possible to add the Google service(s) you want but that defeats the purpose.

As for Netflix, I don't use it. As for banking I use the website, not the app.

Definitely read up on GrapheneOS before switching over. For my use it's completely worth it.

1

warren_stupidity t1_j1dy3aa wrote

The crackdown continues. That scary moment during the official pandemic when the workers of the world started to realize they were essential? That has to be remedied.

2

ThePhantomTrollbooth t1_j1e2ccd wrote

Replying to dungone (#1,023,448)

That’s how you end up with sales teams with huge commissions and limitless budgets, while the operations and customer service teams that are supposed to actually deliver the product work on table-scraps. It might deliver profit for a while, but eventually the quality of the product and service will decline because they continue trying to trim every last cent out of those “cost centers” that are actually the lifeblood of the company.

5

wasbee56 t1_j1e2f7a wrote

sure that's legit, pre-written performance appraisals. not fooling anyone.

2

dungone t1_j1e2qnh wrote

Replying to ThePhantomTrollbooth (#1,024,801)

We have a very different understanding of what a profitable team is. I don't understand how this type of cynicism really works. As far as I can tell, the cynicism relied on the logical fallacy that whoever gets the largest budget is by definition the most profitable. You seem to be saying the opposite of what you actually mean. It appears to me that what you're really saying, once the cynicism is removed, is that the actually profitable teams are not receiving an adequate budget.

But maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong. I can already see your reaction is to immediately downvote.

−4

ThePhantomTrollbooth t1_j1eimz2 wrote

Replying to dungone (#1,024,853)

I didn’t downvote. Other people read these things too. But yes, you’re understanding correctly. Companies chase increased profit by allocating more resources to sales and marketing, but they fail to recognize that they have to be ready to scale and reward the rest of the company accordingly. But since that eats into profits, they do everything they can to avoid it.

2

FrezoreR t1_j1fcpao wrote

Replying to BakingMadman (#1,020,207)

That's a big difference. There's no tax related consequences related to the end of the calendar year for companies, so you kind of invalidated your own statement by "correcting" it.

Taxes are done on the fiscal year not the calendar year. Either way layoffs would have nothing to do with taxes. All these big companies pay 0 taxes already by moving money around.

The big layoffs is instead related to cost per stock, and layoffs usually happen close to an earnings call and again unrelated to the calendar year.

0