|
|
|
|
|
|
by ipsocannibal
1658 days ago
|
|
|
I have no problem with the 6% number for URA. The problem I have is that the 6% never seems to include managers. So when your manager bad hire bungles the OP1, constantly randomizes the team, and then jets to another team in 18 months the manager keeps their stock grant and the poor pleb dev that worked under those conditions gets the axe for their 'poor performance'. |
|
|
For any action, there's an equal and opposite reaction.
What often happens as a result of such policies is that the weaker or newer managers simply become an unwitting separation/firing mill, or the people who have to be managed out are simply those that are inconvenient in some way for the org, or are too new for the team (the infamous hire-to-fire phenomenon).
Also, as in this leak, what happens is that in order to reach a 6% URA target, they may have to put 15% of people through performance improvement, and some of these people simply leave Amazon to successfully work for Google and Facebook, defeating the notion that they had unrecoverable performance issues to begin with.
At the end of the day, if success in improving performance, is a fail in the metric, isn't that itself a fail? (This in turn provides an incentive for the managers to finish up anyone they put for performance improvement, making the whole process a sham, since it's virtually impossible to get out of.)