This, to me, sounds like he's pressuring people to leave, so that they don't have to fire them, which would involve severance.
What they are really trying to avoid is laying off the wrong people. Management is really bad at guessing who wants to stay and who wants out. Often, a bunch of “low performers” are riffed. Some are bad, some are just on the wrong team, some are having life complications- birth, death, divorce, etc.
It’s really bad PR to fire someone who is a low performer because of a bad pregnancy, grandma died, etc. especially when they call a reporter and show their stellar ratings from previous years.
On top of all that, with the rif comes a higher work load. At this time many high performers will quit, which sucks because you just laid off a bunch of people, many of whom were close to these guys in performance.
Then the company is at risk of making bad decisions. They they push even harder on those that remain? Do they become pragmatic and cut initiatives they can no longer staff?
All moves have risk.
The real purpose of the PIP process is to grind people down so they make mistakes, costing them what could otherwise be beautiful lawsuits [1], or just stop showing up (which I guess would fall under quitting, since they end up firing themselves, at least bureaucratically speaking).
----
[1] This is surprisingly easy to do in the US. If you post about your termination on social media, this can be construed as "cause after the fact" and make a termination that was in fact unjust or unlawful now legal. The employer's argument becomes that they knew you held malice toward the company ("cause") but couldn't prove it--the social media activity becomes said "proof".
An employee who quits isnt eligible for unemployment.
(these rules obviously vary by country/state/etc)
Not quite true at Amazon, the most infamous PIP user. You get put on "Focus". If you fail that, you are offered severance or to go on a PIP. True, once you're on the PIP, you're not going to get a severance offer. (This is all according to https://newsletter.pragmaticengineer.com/p/amazon, which is excerpted by the author here https://twitter.com/GergelyOrosz/status/1537810787473006593.)
"In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals that the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely."
It seems that FB, err Meta, is going to advance the turn of the breaking wheel one rotation. They may be attempting, in good faith, to eliminate the flotsam and jetsam in the bureaucracy, but are more than likely to just eliminate those least connected to internal politics.
I would not be surprised if remote-only workers are the most affected, followed by the most 'heads-down' programmers.
It's interesting that these steps are occurring with the recent leaving of Sandberg and I wonder if there is any connection.
I kinda get mgmt types thinking this will keep remaining feeling motivated, safe, etc. but it's very phoney to a lot of us who've been through this before.
But what actually happens is that a few of the lower quartiles leave, and at least as many from the upper quartiles leave. None of the Dunning Kruger people leave because they’re all that and a bag of chips. So you tend toward mediocrity. Doubly so because when the changes that management expected don’t happen, now everyone knows there is likely to be a round of involuntary layoffs. So the people you have left either start playing it safe or become demotivated, further lowering the stuff per dollar. And now the company is doing worse, and some idiot upstairs thinks it’s just their predictions coming true, instead of self fulfilling prophecy.
Not that I mean any of this as a lecture or warning for Zuck. More like a movie trailer. I hope it all burns and we get to watch it happen. But more likely they’ll turn into Microsoft. Fewer teeth, but still essentially the same bastards they always were, because changing a negative founder culture is really, really hard for any social or business group.
That seems completely counterintuitive to me. Seeing your co-worker tip off the end of the plank doesn't make me feel safe as we are all inching closer to the end of it.
Though it would motivate me to look for a job elsewhere.
Lots of CEOs with bad businesses will play this card to avoid responsibility...
Never mind the fact that VR is niche and will always be niche, or that VR conference calls add zero value beyond a simple Zoom call, Meta is going for it anyway because they have no other viable options.
I have to admit that the technology itself looks really cool, but it’s a solution looking for a problem.
It’s not really about VR, it’s just that FB had no chance whatsoever of competing with existing players in the PC, console, or mobile market so they are pushing VR as a “staple” gaming product. They’re trying to make a new market where they can be a major player.
The real vision behind the metaverse is thinking that many of the things we currently do in person (i.e., concerts, going to bars, school, work, etc.) will eventually move online. Meta wants to position themselves as the “platform” for this.
There are people that are willing to zap their eyes with laser only to not wear their glasses that actually allow them to see.
People literally hate putting things on their face/head that restricts what they can see. Maybe because I would fell too vurnable without ability to check what's happening around me.
Now sell them glasses/vr headset that are even less useful. And way heavier.
Or how successful 3d glasses were with 3d tvs or before that colored 3d glasses or even IMAX with their 3D(watched on movie there, not worth the price). Or fact that Nintendo made their 3d work without glasses and then started selling 2d version of that handheld and then forget about 3d in their later products.
Even cyberpunk ability to jack in would be useful to me only when I were still able to use my eyes(or implants) while controlling a device.
Would be interesting to see whether he still considers himself essential for the future of Meta.
He's probably not wrong though. People are routinely amazed just how many people these large companies employ. Big company culture often slips into not what is delivered, but how many people does a manager have under them.
In the past, successful companies have used economic downturns as a way to reset this culture.
This reminds me a bit of a discussion that used to be common during hard times early in my career: layoffs or pay cuts? It didn't take long for companies to figure out that with a layoff you get to choose who goes, but with pay cuts it will disproportionately be your best people because they have the greatest ability to jump upward. Nobody has that conversation any more, because the answer is known. I suspect in a few years Meta's approach to forced attrition (already practiced at Amazon for years) will also be recognized as bad for the long term.
Yes FB is not for me. Not as a worker, not as a customer.
(yes, I know there are probably lots of intellectually interesting jobs at Meta, but the overall purpose and mission just isn't exactly inspiring)
I think this comment says more about you than anything.
If you look into Meta's tech stack they have challenges no company on the planet has and clearly a lot of talent. Having just played with CacheLib it's an impressive project and yet to see an equivalent anywhere else. And I imagine much of what they do is like this when you're operating at their extremes.
They've definitely been responsible for pushing web technologies forward -- but all in the name of increased engagement. Let's not pretend there is an altruistic angle to this.
I’m not a fan of Facebook. I don’t even have an account. But it would be unfair to say they haven’t come up with some truly innovative approaches to large scale infrastructure.
Also, to their credit they are huge supporters of open source. For example the Open Compute Project is still alive and well in large data halls. They are also still supporting the Telecom Infra Project which is responsible for OpenRAN as well as their Open DWDM hardware.
Does all of this work in their favor to support their own business? Absolutely. But that can also be said for every tech company in some form or fashion. But, they still open source it which is way more than a lot of other shops can say.
i think the poster meant 'business model' rather than innovation.
Having an immoral business model doesn't imply they are not innovative - facebook does plenty of technical innovation indeed.
Yet, relative to the age of humanity or even modern society, they are still a new modality to humanity's interaction. One that facilitates also a lot of good that's happening in the world.
There is still a ton they could do right if they chose to, to make that environment for communication a healthier one. Could they find willingness to reroot their design choices in a wider tradition of social psychology, for instance?
Your first paragraph points out the damage FB has done to society.
Your second paragraph appears to give them a pass because social media is "new" and has also done some good.
Your third paragraph tacitly gives FB credit for the things they could do right if they chose to.
Perhaps you're not cynical enough?
Say ello to KPIs.
Imagine what the engineer capable of writing CacheLib would have done instead, had they not worked for Facebook.
(Being facetious)
Turns out "move fast and break things" doesn't make for maintainable code.
/s
Also, what a clear signal the CEO is not focusing on what matters. This was during the time the Cambridge Analytica thing broke... There's really nothing more important that needed his attention?
I just didn't like to be on the receiving end of his coping strategy.
That's a very fair need. Hope your life turns out better than you ever hope it to be.
“I’ve been looking at the Google logo on the iPhone and I’m not happy with the icon. The second O in Google doesn’t have the right yellow gradient. It’s just wrong and I’m going to have Greg fix it tomorrow. Is that okay with you?” Of course this was okay with me.
Facebook is no iPod.
The parallel to Steve Jobs is a fair one, except that Steve was brilliant at design and UX and got things right. He wasn't bothered about tiny details like the padding on a single button but rather the design of the entire system, and he picked up on things that didn't sit in the overall architecture brilliantly.
He also drove people to leave Apple, and that was a bad thing. Things aren't right or justifiable just because they're like things Steve did. Sometimes he got things wrong, particularly when it came to managing people.
If they want a change made that's basically a completely trivial detail that was already within my ability to have done when I was doing the work (e.g. just putting some padding that just felt about right), then sure, I guess. Not sure it's actually important, but whatever.
If it will go against other work (e.g. the padding comes from some central styling rules), entails substantial off-route work, or adds future maintenance debt or project risk, it should go via the product manager if there is one. A good CEO knows not to preempt the people who decide how the product works, what it needs to do and how the team(s) are going to get there. He should also know that product will consider a valid suggestion (and he should know if they're so slammed that they can't even think about it, in which case he can help in other ways than moaning about padding).
In this case it sounds like Zuckerberg is bikeshedding over something trivial (doesn't get much more trivial than padding on a specific button) just to swing his dick about. If he has something insightful to say about the business logic, that would actually show engagement and understanding.
Getting involved in button padding issues isn't one of those cases though. He can spend all the time in the world on that if he likes.
Stock classes are the biggest robbery of modern times.
> larceny from the person or presence of another by violence or threat
How does Facebook’s share offering meet the definition of robbery?
That Zuckerberg was selling a product with such high demand and so little supply that he was able to sell at a very high price does not qualify as Zuckerberg robbing others. It is not even bread for a starving person, it is equity to chase returns.
Zuck controls 90% of the voting rights of FB: https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1061237/how-facebook-si...
Unfortunately, corporations have been successfully lobbying on removing constraints on what they are doing and against adding new ones.
And I don't actually disagree with HFT or finance in general, or sending cat pictures around.
(I'm reserving my judgement on the military.)
You can work on defending the masses from the militaries and bad actors of the world.
When money is good, most people turn a blind eye. Stop the music and people will think twice.
That's like describing SpaceX as "glorified fireworks"
The same with CRUD. CRUD is simple, but to do CRUD on ~Facebook~ Meta scale, that's a different thing.
Not to me. Just reads like they want to ditch low performers.
(They might or might not still want to ditch 'ethical people', no clue. It just doesn't read that way here.)
I would have assumed that Facebook always had the ability to manage-out people they wanted out.
I read it more as let's ditch those 'lazy' people that don't 'embrace the grind', only want to work 8 hours a day and then just go home.
No. You said that. Not sure what you are reading.
It is basically getting rid of very low performers, slackers and those unable to deliver those expected goals.
No where did it say what you have just said.
No - it is specifically aimed at getting rid of people who were doing fine before -- may have been top performers, even -- but who refuse to go into overdrive (start sacrificing sleep, or time with their families) to meet artificial goals.
That is to say: goals designed to reduce headcount -- by turning high performers into low performers.
In other news, the value of a developer who knows how to solve the problem at hand vs torching your money on maintaining the overkill of dozens of microservices has just gone up.
Well that was long due: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2013/mar/11...
Presumably only where legally permitted. For instance, Ireland:
> for sedentary office work, a minimum temperature of 17.5° C, so far as is reasonably practicable, is achieved and maintained at every workstation after the first hour’s work.
He makes it sound like these people sneaked in into the company without being hired.
This reminds me of my greedy uncle - went to a wedding, gobbled every other food and drink in sight and then when the fierce loose motions hit, blamed the food.
It's a thing where you get performance reviews every 6 months, and where every minute contribution gets scored. Or so I've been told by a former mid-level Facebook manager who quit after a bit more than a year because he couldn't stand that toxic place anymore.
I found it particularly funny that the interviewers who gave the thumbs up to hire him would get bad marks because of his early departure.
If anything, that makes this internal announcement worse because of the whiplash.
"We're going to make PSC less onerous and stressful by only doing it once a year!"
"Just kidding, we're actually going full Hunger Games with the new once-a-year cycle!"
There's something interesting going on here. I agree that people will probably perceive annual PSC as less stressful than semiannual PSC. But even there, some people might not.
And there is a point where more frequent is very clearly less stressful. If you did PSC once a week, it wouldn't be cause for stress, it would just be something you did every week.
After copy-and-pasting the same answers year after year in the self evaluation form, my manager got the message. That was, what, 10 years ago?
Now, once per year, we have a 20min meeting, he tells me “good job”, gives my new salary and RSUs, and we’re good.
It’s great.
i have been really pleasantly surprised at how pervasive this mindset is among pretty much every one of my colleagues. it's something that i wanted at my previous jobs. i suppose it's not for everyone but it's been working for the small sample of people i know.
I don't know if you can graft that onto a company, though. Amazon's like that because Bezos is. It seems like Facebook/Meta is more like playing fast and loose and damn the consequences, which isn't exactly the same thing. Being the best is not the same as winning, though neither of 'em are necessarily nice at the highest levels of performance.
At first blush, someone that thinks they can game that kind of system.
So: unlock a bunch of achievements (I don't care about tech debt do u?), try to diminish the contributions of coworkers, cash out when you win and then head off to the next company.
This is a two-week period that kick-starts the review process for both managers and employees.
https://candor.co/articles/tech-careers/performance-reviews-...
'Staffers' to me always meant personnel in a political context, i.e. White House Staffers or, in a commercial context, recruiters, i.e. people responsible for providing staff.
Does anyone else concur? I did check with the dictionary which is telling me that 'staffers' is a synonym for 'staff' but... I've not seen it used that way commonly until very recently.
In the context of a political organisation it is used to mean 'team members' (because they're not always formally employed staff) but I've not encountered it being used that way to refer to staff/consultants employed by a private company, hence my questioning.
You will never beee president
So that's one less thing to worry about, one less thing to worry about
I imagine that song from Hamilton plays on Zuck’s bidet
And a lot of the engineering work that has come out of Facebook has been excellent, like React/React Native have changed the world.
But it's just really hard to see Zuckerberg as a good business leader. When you compare the business to something like Amazon - which has a strong culture around decision making and cultivates a style of leadership in it's executives.
So far, it seems like he hit a really good product/market fit and had good timing with Facebook. The strategy since then has basically been to stay ahead by acquiring social platforms that become successful. Until one came along that he couldn't just throw money at and acquire. Oops.
And now with the turn on the dime to "Meta" - other companies have been trying to figure out VR for a long time. Apple has reportedly had a VR headset concept going for years and is probably still several years from releasing it. For Amazon to come out with a product like that, it would have to start with a PRFAQ and a lot of vetting just to release the product. To rename the company and start putting all their energy towards it, which letting actual profit centers languish just wouldn't happen.
So not only has he not validated this new direction, he's now asking people working comfy FAANG jobs to knuckle down and suffer for it. It works when Elon Musk does it because he can make appeals like "we're going to make humanity multi-planetary"
Meta's pitch is "What if we convinced everybody to live in a virtual world controlled entirely by us, where we take 50% of a cut of every digital good that is purchased" - who wants to work 70 hours a week towards making that dystopia a reality?
I feel like Epic Games, with Fortnite being basically a social hub for kids and monetizing skins/associating social status with skins is closer to realizing some early version of "the metaverse" then what we've seen from Meta. I think that metaverse behavior is already happening in a lot of ways, it just isn't happening with dorky headsets and probably won't until the tech matures enough to get there.
If we're talking ethics and it has to be FAANG... I guess that just leaves Netflix really. And maybe I just don't know their business in detail. But all the rest are ethically compromised.
Facebook, to their credit, were the ones that forced higher engineering salaries. We wouldn't even be talking about the stupid concept of FAANG (why anyone took Jim Cramer seriously is beyond me) if it weren't for Facebook. Because Google, Apple, etc. were doing backroom deals to form a hiring cartel[1], to prevent poaching talent and keep salaries artificially low. Facebook refused to play. Even today I hear that if you have a Google offer then you better have a Facebook offer in hand just to get Google to budge on their low-ball.
[1] https://pandodaily.com/2014/03/30/court-docs-google-hiked-wa...
>If we're talking ethics and it has to be FAANG...
I wasn't really talking about ethics, that was more of an aside. I was trying to make the point that not only is the metaverse (and using metaverse here I mean a virtual reality controlled by a private company) completely unproven ground as a market, and is easily 5-10 years away from being even somewhat practical and not a complete gimmick with technology, it also would make most of the big unsolved problems our society is still grappling with around technology way worse
Like platform control. Facebook And Epic both say Apple has too much power. Apple hurt FB's ad business by limiting tracking. Epic sued to try to force a change in IAP rules etc... Then you've got Republicans saying the exact same thing about Facebook and other social platforms - that they have too much power and got mad when they banned Donald Trump. Republicans right now are pressuring Google to stop marking their shady campaign emails as spam in Gmail.
And I agree with them, but I also agree with Apple that it would be hard for iOS to be as secure as it is if they didn't have that level of control. Smart phones are computers. And for a lot of people, it's their only computer. It's a really tricky issue that has not been solved yet.
In a hypothetical scenario where people spend most of their lives working and after work in a "metaverse" controlled by a private company, that's even worse. What if you get banned from the metaverse, and it effectively cuts off your ability to live a normal life or participate in society? Hey, it's their platform so first amendment doesn't apply but every job in your field uses the metaverse as a remote workplace. You don't get to see your friends or family nearly as much. Your agency and autonomy as a human being is controlled down to what physical movements you can make, who you can speak to, it can all be recorded and controlled. Of course, even if control was handed to the government that would be handing them more direct power over people than any government has ever had.
I don't know why Mark Zuckerberg thinks that he would be trusted with this amount of control even if he got the tech down when the level of trust people have in FB as an entity has deteriorated an extreme amount over the last 7 years and they've faced vicious criticism from both parties in the United States.
There's a huge "ethics" gulf between writing code that is unambiguously good for the world (or whatever) and building... that. Like I said in my original post, I think a lot of the criticism Facebook got as a result of the 2016 election was unfounded. I don't think Facebook is an "evil" company (whatever evil even means here) but I don't think it's an ethical or moral one either.
It's especially odd because when Mark talks, he seems to really make a point to talk about Facebook's "vision" and "goal" to "connect people" - which is super vague. But it's like he expects that to be enough to inspire people. It's not. People choose to work there because they pay more and like you said, have a good rep as being a good place to work for and great on a resume.
Which brings me back to my original point: I don't think Mark Zuckerberg is a competent leader for a company of Meta's size and scope. When Bezos wanted to do spaceships, he didn't rename Amazon and start pushing in that direction, he spun off a separate company. It's clear Mark is passionate about this. He's hanging out doing videos with his R&D team. He should find someone else to head Facebook and focus on what he's passionate about. He wouldn't necessarily need to leave Meta, just transition his leadership so he's not CEO anymore.
This isn't responsible behavior from someone who leads a very large publicly traded company and I think it's part of why their stock is so volatile.
Facebook and it's portfolio of companies is threatened by TikTok and whatever comes next, but not existentially. TikTok will never offer what Facebook does in terms of things like groups, marketplace, a decade + of curated personas that people have on there. I had to create a Facebook account when I moved out of the United States because there were ex-pat groups on there and it was a reliable and non sketchy way to find things like long term housing.
One path for Facebook was/still is to become the "Oracle" of social media. Profitable, reliable and dependable but not new and exciting. Instagram, WhatsApp and FB are all profitable and stable businesses. Instead, it's like he's stuck in this mindset where he still thinks social media is all about "what's next" and FB will become MySpace if he can't keep 13-20 year olds on his platforms. Social media as a space has matured. Meta should mature with it.
Facebook was severely harmed when Apple made their platform changes. Imagine if Google's only revenue still came from search ads and they didn't have Android, YouTube, Google Cloud, Google Suite or the many other things they've done. Or if Amazon's revenue came from selling products to consumers online instead of AWS and Advertising.
Why has Facebook not able to diversify it's revenue and seemingly the only strategy has been acquiring competitors? Bad executive leadership. I don't understand why it's not discussed more.
Zuckerberg is well aware of the technical challenges of VR headsets and they're putting a lot of effort into getting the headsets where they need to be. Seems like they're helping push the technology much further than any other company right now.
Here's a 30 minute video where he and Michael Abrash go into the technical challenges, and what they've been doing to address those issues, as well as showing off prototype devices they've been working on[1].
And there's an hour long episode of Adam Savage's Tested series where they get to try the prototypes and go into even more detail[2].
1. Nobody knows "where they need to be" to become suitable for mass adoption. Definitely better than they are now, but personally I highly doubt I'd feel comfortable using a full VR headset regularly unless it was a "full dive" experience where I don't have to use a controller.
2. Hardware is a lot more difficult than software. Facebook's hardware track record is non existent beyond what they acquired with Oculus, which was a startup.
Apple has more experience designing and producing hardware than Google, Facebook and Amazon combined and if they don't think the tech is ready, it's probably not ready.
3. Why is Mark Zuckerberg the face of this? People find him talking so uncomfortable that they make memes about him being a lizard person. That more than anything is what makes it feel like a billionaire's vanity project. How is he being allowed to bet the entire company on this? Does the board have any real power? If I had any kind of significant equity in Meta I'd be really concerned right now that the CEO seems to be in la-la land and is issuing missives telling his employees to quit.
The Quest headsets already have accurate controllerless hand tracking, but not many experiences optimized for the input mode.
> Apple has more experience designing and producing hardware than Google, Facebook and Amazon combined and if they don't think the tech is ready, it's probably not ready.
Apple is releasing a VR headset next year, which means they think the technology is ready.
Apple entering this space will probably do wonders for broader acceptance of the technology, like the dedorkification of smartwatches with the introduction of the apple watch.
What secret sauce has Apple found that will make it more compelling than all other solutions which have utterly failed to gain any traction? Cheaply enough that anyone outside early adopters will want it?
People don’t want to wear glasses for long periods of time in the first place — it’s why LASIK exists.
Some people don't, but plenty of people do, or at least would rather where glasses than be blind or take a slightly risky procedure. I'm one of those people.
I've chosen to keep wearing glasses despite LASIK being a thing for 24 years now. Even my own father has gotten LASIK and I haven't.
If anything, getting into VR (I use it for about an hour a day on average, it's become part of my workout routine) has made me want to get the eye surgery more, to make putting on/off the headset more convenient.
For now I've just gotten prescription lenses for my headset, which are definitely a lot better than putting the headset over my glasses, but still not ideal.
Also, I choose to wear glasses instead of contact lenses. I did wear contact lenses for a couple years, but it my eyes dried out a lot, I left them in when I passed out on accident periodically, easy to lose, they were expensive, and my left eye really fought me putting them in. I'm far from the only person, as:
"According to the Vision Council of America, approximately 75% of adults use some sort of vision correction. About 64% of them wear eyeglasses, and about 11% wear contact lenses, either exclusively, or with glasses."[1]
[1]: http://www.glassescrafter.com/information/percentage-populat...
Pancake optics and Apple silicon will probably play a key role in Apple's VR product. But Apple often succeeds where others fail through incredible execution, holistic product design, and the trust they've built with consumers.
It's that an exaggeration?
Still, about how much does Meta bet on VR? Maybe compared to profits?
Welcome! You're going to get fired! If you want a “family” join a startup!
Truly great engineering requires long-term commitment. Great engineering organizations often have people leave by retiring, not being fired.
https://developerpitstop.com/how-long-do-software-engineers-...
I have no idea where those numbers come from, but I don't for a second buy the idea that average tenure at Netflix is larger than others on the peninsula.
I don't think he's blaming anyone either. The fact he's acknowledging there are probably people working at FB who shouldn't be suggests you're wrong and that for years FB has kept people despite it not being the company's best interests.
Tbh I wish all companies were honest about why they're cutting back. I know I've been given BS reasons for being cut before and I've also been given no notice or warning. This seems relatively honest and direct in comparison. Those providing value will be fine, those who are not will be let go - isn't this how employment should function?
In virtually every instance, Meta proffered the employment contract and its provisions, vetted the counter party, and gave assent to enter into contract.
Arguably, “there are probably a bunch of people at the company who shouldn't be here,” and their intent to “turn up the heat,” represents a failure of Meta to conduct proper due diligence when entering into contract, and a modification of the provisions of employment after-the-fact.
In most instances these would be considered organizational failures. Your reference to the business cycle and other delicate economic terms are not the explanatory variables, not even to Meta themselves.
You CAN NOT attract top tier talent easily to a dumpster fire and they know this. You can't be giving away free food, ice cream, no performance reviews for two years during the pandemic and shipping 10s of thousands of office equipment to each individual employees homes for two years during the pandemic, continue to approve aggressive hiring plans and laying out $10 Billion dollar outlays for the fucking Metaverse and then turn around and say to the employees you hired that "You guys suck"
I would just call it childish, but this asshole deserves no benefit of doubt. It's downright disgusting.
People change, employ motivation levels wane, especially when a chunk of your employees are millionaires. Lots of folks who want to rest and vest- this announcement is aimed at getting those people to fire back up to higher productivity, or to take a different job they are passionate about.
.."turning up the heat" on performance management to weed out staffers unable to meet more aggressive goals.
"Realistically, there are probably a bunch of people at the company who shouldn't be here," Zuckerberg said. "Part of my hope by raising expectations and having more aggressive goals, and just kind of turning up the heat a little bit, is that I think some of you might decide that this place isn't for you, and that self-selection is OK with me," he said.