Submitted by ThisIsNotCorn t3_yy3cth in technology
[deleted] t1_iwsaoeu wrote
Reply to comment by phdoofus in 10,000 Google Employees Could Be Rated as Low Performers by ThisIsNotCorn
Amazon does in their distribution centers. You get a survey at regular intervals to rate your direct manager. Too low of a score and they get the axe.
monsterosaleviosa t1_iwsf4ck wrote
Your direct manager in a distribution center is still just a workhorse like you to them, they’re not actually on a different level in the way that corporate leaders are.
ironichaos t1_iwsdoef wrote
Yeah but that’s for middle management I doubt it effects senior level leaders that much.
Coyotesamigo t1_iwtf8a2 wrote
My brother in law is a senior manager of some sort in corporate Amazon and gets these direct report performance reviews weekly. Once they dropped for him so he asked everyone what the problem was and they all said “no worries, great work boss” which is not unexpected. But what is the point of the system if there’s no context? What was HR thinking?
dethb0y t1_iwtl39w wrote
That an anonymous vote is more honest than having your boss ask you "how am i doing as your boss"?
Coyotesamigo t1_iwu9ed1 wrote
Sure. But in this case there was no j formation or context for my BIL to follow up on or improve. I’ll be honest, I don’t remember the specifics but when we talked, it was very much “someone is unhappy all of a sudden but I don’t know who and I don’t know why”
I understand why anonymous feedback exists but in my experience it is usually filtered through a third party to make sure it’s helpful.
pnt510 t1_iwtm53d wrote
The problem is no one wants to give their boss honest feedback if it’s negative. There are too many potential downsides.
Coyotesamigo t1_iwu94zq wrote
Yeah, that’s the point I was trying to make. Why even implement a feedback system like this when there is almost no way to reasonably follow up. It just makes people unhappy and stressed out for no reason. Maybe that’s why they do it.
JoyousGamer t1_iwumlh5 wrote
Very well could be they are not approachable and encourage open communication.
Could as well be the current review format specific to their position is not correctly done.
Having it so it's not a trackable to the employee allows for a more open line of feedback.
Coyotesamigo t1_iwvjp3d wrote
I understand why he didn’t get any feedback directly.
Im asking what the point of context free anonymous feedback is. Telling people “you are suddenly bad and not as appreciated by your team” and then not providing any information as to why will not help improve.
Since that context is not built into the feedback I question it’s utility.
JoyousGamer t1_ixd3mix wrote
It is to encourage individuals to put their true feelings. Regarding context it should be provided to allow free text comments as well as enough variation on questions to piece together a possible issue. If that is not provided then the data collection is flawed not the format of it being anonymous.
As a good leader its your job to be able to have the trust of those working with you to gather that information. Also just because you are rated poorly doesn't mean you are bad at your job its possible that you are not the right fit for your specific team.
Amigosito t1_iwsqjgn wrote
Amazon does this across-the-board for all employees. They call it “the bar”; if you’re below it, you’re being managed out. Every time they bringing a new employee who “raises the bar”, an existing employee falls “below the bar”. Or sometimes they will hire people “below the bar” just to fire them and set an “example.”
LordTC t1_iwss7cv wrote
Amazon has stack ranking which requires managers to fire a certain percentage of their team each year (often 10%). Because of this if you are happy with your current team you hire people in order to fire them.
SomeDudeNamedMark t1_iwsxl76 wrote
That is such an incredibly shitty thing to do.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised by it, but damn...
DaiTaHomer t1_iwt8rs5 wrote
What they do is game this system by hiring people for the express purpose of later firing to keep the moronic management that is Amazon from messing up their teams.
SlowMotionPanic t1_iwt9hoq wrote
Stack ranking, aka forced distribution, should be illegal. Funny that the companies that pioneered it in America inevitably left it by the wayside after each lost massive class action suits against them for the practice.
Because of that, many of these companies will bend over backwards to avoid using the terms even though it is precisely descriptive.
The people who need to be managed out are all of upper management and their HR enablers. Workers should have a say in how their company is run but a lifetime of capital class propaganda has made people have automatic negative responses to things like that. Like Pavlov ringing a bell for his dogs.
davebowmanandhal t1_iwuqzlq wrote
I thought this type of jack welch GE management nonsense was shown not to work all that well.
Drakonx1 t1_iwv77pl wrote
It was, and they teach you that in business school, but that's basically immediately untaught when you get out into the world because execs don't care about data if it conflicts with their feelings.
davebowmanandhal t1_iwvfl5h wrote
Lol this is absolutely true. They think they’re hard headed business people, but they have a porcelain ego.
Coyotesamigo t1_iwtfbef wrote
My bro in law hires people just to protect his team. Nuts
Amorougen t1_iwuko32 wrote
I've done this and hated it. Another example of forced ranking.
catdog918 t1_iwsb1hs wrote
My company also has a rating for manager but they don’t just fire them for bad ratings. They do take the ratings seriously and I guess if it keeps coming back overwhelmingly negative then eventually they’d be let go or moved around the organization
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments