Even if it is due to circumstances, I've never seen a lazy person become unlazy after intervention from management. Sample size .. perhaps 20? The best solution is to terminate them quickly. Zuck's attitude here is what I look for in leaders when considering whether to join a company. There is little that's more demoralizing than pulling someone's weight for years while management is too disorganized to fire them, or worse yet when management thinks that half of your output is actually the output of the person you've been carrying.

I've seen many turnarounds. I've seen others that just don't understand what's expected and will never turn around. I've seen folks sit on a team they hate for 3+ year cause they love the people but hated the work. I found that one a new team and they're very productive again, but they would have stayed unhappy and unproductive for years without intervention.

> I found that one a new team and they're very productive again

This. I should have added context that my experience was in small companies where it wasn't really possible to change teams. But some of the people that were bad performers became good performers only after they were fired and found new jobs. I've seen this happen at more than one company. They were probably just demotivated or hated their boss or something, and no amount of intervention can really fix that, short of a change in job (or a change in team, as you mention, if it's a bigger company).

Some people don't know others see them going slow and managers don't have conversations till it's become problematic. Some people don't realize or won't inculcate feedback until they're fired. They play brinkmanship with their managers. Those people firing cab help. Kick in the pants as it were.

Sub-standard is relative to a standard. If someone finds themselves to be sub-standard, maybe they should find a place with lower standards? That's exactly what Zuck is saying.

On one hand, I've worked with a guy once who, as far as I could tell, did about an hour of work per day (if that) and played fantasy baseball in his office most of the time, waiting to be PIPed and managed out for a really long time... I inherited his code and it was a patchwork of minimum effort hacky fixes with no care for quality (cause he wasn't going to maintain it, I guess?). I really don't care what his circumstances are, I don't want to work with people like that, I wish they could fire him much faster than they did, and I bet most people would agree.

On the other hand I've heard about FB in particular is that there are teams with lots of people working 12-hour days. I am not willing to do that; it would be dumb for me to join such a team, and kind of a dick move to stick around as a low performer (I heard it from a friend who tried to keep up then decided to quit).

> Sub-standard is relative to a standard. If someone finds themselves to be sub-standard, maybe they should find a place with lower standards? That's exactly what Zuck is saying.

Sure, and maybe Zuck should just keep shifting the goal-posts, without limit? Where's the harm?

From talking with friends at Meta, this is re-raising the bar. Meta was apparently pretty understanding how Covid affected people psychologically, even if they didn't get sick. My contacts say this is a return to the pre-covid standard.

Additionally, the economy is struggling and Meta hasn't had great earnings reports vs expectations. Wouldn't you want a CEO to communicate that the company needs to buckle down before things get dire?

> It's truly disturbing when Zuckerberg says something so dystopian, and people 'in the trenches' call for more.

Or maybe people here on HN are sick of finding --in team after team-- those 1 or 2 people who take forever to finish their work and drag the whole team down.

I don’t care about people who take forever. Or who don’t know things. What I dislike is people who don’t care. Who write just shit that then breaks all the time or has to be fixed by others. If you are slow, take your time. But please care enough to write quality code.

Does it materially hurt you somehow if the team doesn’t finish all their print points? If you work at a company as big as Facebook, then certainly not.

I had a coworker whom I sat next to that reflected a lot of these qualities, that I had worked very hard to eliminate from myself just a few years earlier. It was simultaneously irritating because I was waiting on him for work, while also invoking sympathy. I knew what kinds of problems he was struggling with, and could guess at a few of the causes.

Okay, so you think it’s all circumstantial? What’s the mix? Are there no people that just like to skate by?

Nope. Don't know. Nope.

Rather than continue replying to individuals, my final thoughts:

The responses here seem short-sighted.

A company is openly increasing pressure on staff to force people to leave.

This does not protect or benefit you, despite what you may think about how great things will be once your idiotic, lazy co-workers amicably depart with zero collateral impact.

This is aggressively targeted at you. Not today's you (or so you believe) but tomorrow's you.

Just because you imagine you'll benefit from this shifting of boundaries, doesn't mean you'll continue to benefit next time it happens.

And for the variations on the theme "so you think everyone should be allowed to slack off", nope, and I didn't say that.