"Look what you made us do, you made us fire you."
How about stopping your business being so reliant on the casino economics of the stock market instead?
Meta will carry out a backdoor layoff by asking line managers to select staff to cull ostensibly on performance grounds. In an internal message to managers at the end of last week, Meta's VP of Remote Presence and Engineering Maher Saba told lower-level leadership to identify poor performers and submit their names to Meta's …
"No she didn't. She left Facebook about a year or so ago if memory serves. Quite a brave lady in that she made her name public and has appeared before various committees blowing the gaffe. That takes courage."
May 2021 according to wikipedia.
@Anonymous Coward - "Frances Haugen received her pink slip over the weekend."
How do you get something so wrong? Unless you have a specific agenda here?
Nice to know Facebook HR systems are so far out of step with reality.
Does this mean over the coming weeks/months, HR can update their systems, enabling Facebook to announce the termination of x under-performing employees; under-performing because they've not actually been working at FB for sometime...
Yes, and I'm sure they're already doing that; you don't wait until you have financial issues before firing someone who is causing problems or failing to get tasks done. This is just finding a different excuse for firing people who otherwise would have been considered good enough to keep for a while. They'll probably do it in three rounds (two chosen by them):
Round 1: Managers select anyone they don't like for the first cull.
Round 2: People unhappy at the increased workload go somewhere else.
Round 3: The people who look unhappy with the responsibilities of several workers because some from their team have been fired or quit and nobody is being hired to replace them are selected for the second cull. After all, they don't want unhappy workers.
And in parallel: a lot of your better employees who can see this happening and can easily get other jobs will leave fast and early. Thinning out doesn't only lose the people that you want to get rid of. Unless you are desperate to cut costs and don't care about the damage that will do to you in the long run, of course.
"Whilst not defending Metazuckbook, isn't it pretty standard practice to lay off rubbish staff?"
Being in the 10% or whatever lower performers doesn't mean you can't do your job. If you keep culling the lowest performers, eventually you are going to be culling good people, no matter how big the org.
I want to call all writers, both of articles and of comments, to rebel against the name Meta. Mostly because I had a moment of confusion when I read "a 2019 meta-analysis on employee performance and job security" in the article and wondered if they meant that Meta the company was doing the analysis. Also because that name is just bad. I suggest we pretend they never changed the name and continue calling them Facebook until the company gets its very deserved bankruptcy. After all, we only talk about Alphabet in a few cases relevant to financials, and all their stuff still gets the Google label.
"Meta also decided to leave some jobs unfilled, its hope being that those who actually belonged at the Silicon Valley goliath would rise to meet the challenge of taking on other people's responsibilities."
We have decided to make you work 2 jobs... your own and someone else's after they were fired for poor performance, please remember that if you perform poorly in either job , you'll be fired too........... oh and theres no pay increase for you covering for 2 people.
This post has been deleted by its author
Well, I certainly see the Euro-centrist attitudes in here.
If you not performing at the level the company requires. and you are not improving after the company makes an effort to get your production up to requirements, then you have to go! Coasting employees just drag everyone else down! Other people have to work harder to cover you, making them less productive. The problem with a lot of corporations is they make this process some big secret! They are afraid of "hurting the little brats feelings!" Of you make this process public and up front from the beginning if the hiring process, that you WILL be evaluated and your performance at a certain level IS required and if you fail to perform YOU WILL be let go then the whole idea of being a slacker is crushed from the beginning! If you don't like it then don't take the job! Then there is no surprise when your let go and no calling the lawyers because you "feel" you were treated unfairly!
>If you not performing at the level the company requires.
Well that is effectively all of the workforce!
I've never met anyone who has been able to maintain an (5) Outstanding and/or (4) Exceeds Expectations appraisal over time, everyone will drift into (3) Meets Expectations or (2) Needs Improvement. Remember "Meets expectations" means you could do better and thus are not performing at the level the company requires.
Funnily enough, I often received a (2) because I was often switching jobs before I had fully honed the skills and so was always hitting the novice/intermediate skills level. I think in one company I survived because I created technical solutions and wrote proposals that consistently got the company shortlisted - which was part of the job description and thus from an appraisal perspective I was merely meeting the expectations for the role...