News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Amazon Pip Horror Story by NhanH on Friday February 04, 2022 @09:41AM (#30207294)
That only applies if the bad employees are uniformly distributed amongst all teams in the company. Otherwise it makes more sense to chop the worst 10% teams.
Re:Amazon Pip Horror Story by mjr00 on Friday February 04, 2022 @09:59AM (#30207532)
At Amazon, the target was between 4 to 6% when I was there, but it was applied at the larger department level, not individual teams. It was perfectly fine to have a team of 10 where nobody was on a PIP (yes, such things exist!), but when it came to my entire 250-person department, all of the managers were in a room together ranking every employee they had and using "data" (peer reviews and results delivered, mainly) to fight over which employees got into the top and bottom tiers.
Re:Amazon Pip Horror Story by geekbird on Friday February 04, 2022 @05:10PM (#30214036)
Yep. This creates a lateral sabotage, work stealing and kiss up culture.
Re:Amazon Pip Horror Story by vintermann on Friday February 04, 2022 @11:51AM (#30209256)
W. Edwards Deming posited that management was responsible for more than 85% of the causes of variation. If this is true, I modestly suggest replacing the CEO in roughly 4 out of every 5 months.

(Somehow stack ranking logic never gets applied that way.)

Re:Amazon Pip Horror Story by rdtwo on Friday February 04, 2022 @09:53AM (#30207452)
That actually makes way more sense. Cutting teams that don’t perform and reforming makes lots of sense