|
|
|
|
|
|
by lazide
1864 days ago
|
|
|
FYI - The official line for several FAANG’s is that the week/day level of micromanagement done as part of typical performance management for underperformers is referred to as investment. And it kinda is - about 25% of the people I’ve had to do it for did well (4 if I remember correctly). Another 25% needed a clear ‘you need to improve or you’re out’ message that merely saying it to them did not provide. They needed the paperwork. They reset and got their act together right away, and the ‘micromanagement’ consisted of checking in with them for a few weeks or a month until it was clear that their trajectory was changed. Roughly another 25% had mis-fitting roles or expectations (one was a CS major, and despite interviewing for and taking a coding job, realized they hated coding about 2 kmonths in). The remaining 25% approx. fought the whole way, refused to take any ownership of their issues, and were a huge relief for the team when they were gone - and in the environment I dealt with most of these cases? It was incredibly, incredibly hard to get rid of them. 3+ months of constant work, mandatory weekly check-ins and micromanagement, you name it. I don’t like firing people, but I hate toxic team environments, and recognize it helps no one for someone to stay in a culture/org/team that clearly doesn’t work. I personally always put the work in, because I knew how important it was. I’ve seen many managers not do that. I agree with you that it’s better to fire a not fit. I’ve also seen many (50%ish) turn it around after or shortly after other companies would have summarily fired them. Big Corp, especially big tech Corp, has a giant target on it’s back and is very risk adverse to firing (justifiably so) in many cases, even if it hurts the team or the individual. |
|
|
Ex-Amazon here. Most FAANGs are known for their aggressive stack-ranking and high attrition rate. Amazon has the highest attrition rate.