> If they shouldn't be there, fire them.

No, you set clear performance expectations, give them feedback, and then hold them accountable if they don't meet those performance expectations. Which seems to be what Meta is doing here.

I honestly can't believe so many people in this thread would prefer that Meta just slash and burn employees instead of giving them expectations and a chance to meet them.

> I honestly can't believe so many people in this thread would prefer that Meta just slash and burn employees instead of giving them expectations and a chance to meet them.

I honestly can't believe you'd trust this kind of management to give fair expectations.

Let's be honest. They know who they're going to get rid of. Now they just have to create the pre-text.

I'm surprised you actually believe that a company that has incompetently hired thousands of excess people will suddenly have an amazing process for setting performance expectations and holding people accountable.

Some people might just think those are weasel words to cover an impending large-scale RIF.

Are you suggesting that Facebook has no performance evaluation process for the employees at all right now? If they do, it seems like you could look at those evaluations and make some decisions immediately. If they don't, then fair enough, implement that. What's the purpose of "turning up the heat" to try to get people to quit? And, as others have mentioned, those who quit first if you make their lives harder will be the ones that have other options (usually the high performers).

Yep, I don't want to work in a fear-based management structure. Sorry for those who don't have better options, but I'm walking when I hear stuff like this.

Everyone knows that there are poor performers in any organization, but nobody knows for sure who many of them are.