[vineyardmike]

> "You updated your linkedIn so I am going to fire you"

You might be close to quitting (via perceived signal) so I’m going to give the high visibility project to someone “loyal”.

You may be perceived as a quitter so I’m going to give discretionary budget for the next raise to the employee who is more loyal.

You might be perceived as quitting, and my company requires me to stack rank employees. The lowest gets fired. I put you there to keep the rest of my team. You become a “sacrifice” since you were going to quit anyways.

And these are just the examples my friends at Amazon talk about. I’m sure there’s more.

Now consider all of the above, but now you’re on a visa. Losing your job means you have a few weeks to replace it or get deported.

[shon]

Typically these tools are bought and used by HR or Talent Acq departments, not managers so the type of detailed decision-making you’re describing wasn’t a use-case in my experience.

It’s more like a roll-up metric that can be looked at globally, by role, department, location, etc. yes, it can also be used at the individual level but again, HR is the buyer and they are the most fearfully bureaucratic department in most companies .

From a data and capability perspective, I agree it’s a little scary. But in practice I doubt it’s used this way and if so, there’s your retention problem.

[sangeeth96]

Murphy's law disagrees.