>> Getting rid of employees you don't want is a good thing. How well this method works for them relative to other ways to evaluate employees?
It is not a question of whether the employees being PIP'ed / fired are good employees that perform well or not. It is all about meeting the unregretted attrition (URA) quota set by human resources regardless of the employee's current or past performance.
The Twitter thread states: "The URA targets are set at org-level. Most SDMs will not be aware of this: usually director-level target. It’s almost always been fixed 6%".
Employee quote: "I was Focus/PIP'd out after 10+ years of good to great reviews, by a manager I worked under for a total of ~2 months. This system is completely and utterly broken."
"the company is demanding, sometimes brutally so, and it can lose sight of its employees’ humanity — which is neither good nor in its strategic interest. Amazon’s insistence on hitting “unregretted attrition” milestones, to the point that it would push out solid performers, is one example of the culture’s downsides." Source: https://bigtechnology.substack.com/p/standing-up-for-us-pleb...
If you have poor performers, then obviously they should be let go. But if you have a solid team, who do you let go? If you have a solid team with a few open headcount and you have trouble hiring to fill the open headcount, who do you let go?
PIP'ing and firing good employees just to meet a quota is stupid and yet that is the policy.
A job today is no guarantee, implicit or explicit, of a job tomorrow. Terminating someone, even without cause, is not wronging them, it is merely a revocation of consent to continue the business relationship.
A job isn't some bank account into which you are depositing money each day for future withdrawal. The employee does not owe the employer, nor vice versa.
You work hard for the paycheck, and equity if any, not for having a job tomorrow. They are orthogonal.
It's a business relationship, not a personal one. They don't owe you a birthday call after you split up; the paycheck/equity is full compensation.
Making up false reasons to fire someone seems like wronging someone to me. If you're going to constantly fire people, be like Netflix and just say it's going to happen.
Heard about the day 1 thing? It also applies to people. I feel Amazon views Human Resources as tissues to use and discard. You know it needs to be discarded and you know a fresh one is better. Might as well use it up fast and toss it out. The next person coming in will be full of optimism and enthusiasm about their “day 1”.
I know. That's why I asked the question.
Getting rid of employees you don't want is a good thing. How well this method works for them relative to other ways to evaluate employees?