Because of multiple reports of Amazon's hiring and firing strategy, the company is anticipating a drop in the quantity and quality of hires. As a last-ditch most of the teams have started gearing up for increased number of hiring drives. I've heard multiple teams have asked the developers to take atleast ~5 interviews per week. At-least this way even if good candidates can't be hired, they can save the old employees to be used as URA quota. #Amazon
I am not at amazon and this was from my internship. But curious how amazon benefits from URA? like why u hire to fire? whats the ideology behind this practice? Why not just remove bottom tier people, why add extra hiring burden only to fire them later!
This is one of sadistic beliefs of Jeff. Also at Amazon, intentions don't work, everything needs to be put into some mechanism. So Jeff, has made his belief into one of the mechanism that whole company has to follow. As to why Jeff believes this works? It doesn't.
I guess hm are trying to get lucky with some of the new hires? Or maybe to keep pressure on the current top performers?
I don't understand why people keep bashing over Amazon pip culture. They hire literally anyone and the bar is so low. It makes sense to have some kind of way filter out unproductive people. It's after all a business and not a charity.
Why they have such a low hiring bar?
Demand and supply of good talent. They're in every product category you can imagine and you need resources to deliver. They have to compete with other companies for talent. Amazon targets those who couldn't get into FANG and other companies with good hiring bar.
iF you choose to interview, be super picky about what recruiter you work with and what interviews you accept. Too many recruiters mean most will fail. They’ll lie to make their numbers knowing full well you’ll either never make the cut or last. So said multiple recruiter friends.
If their reputation is this poor, candidates will shun away from their recruiters and so the number of interviews will drastically drop. Will this begin to affect their old employees? If an SDM really has to throw someone under the bus?
In my org they just increased the bonus for referrals too
Just curious, but what makes 5% URA so unfair? I don’t think I’ve ever worked anywhere that I couldn’t walk around and get rid of 5% of the people each year. I’ve gotten rid of more than that on a year to year basis. Is it the one off instance where everyone on your team is average or better, and you feel it’s unfair to remove that 1 average person? For a fortune global top 10 it’s not that unreasonable of a practice.
because making a quota teams that don't have shitty people might need to let go someone for noe real reason other than quota, and it also gets played to fire someone for no t working 60hrs a week. Making a quota is a garbage policy, if you get sick your delivered results at the end of quarter might put you on top 5% in that quarter(or year) and you are out ofr no reason.
So your argument is the rare case where the worst person on the team is an above average employee and still gets pipped. What about the other 95% of the situations where there is an underpeforming person? You’d rather sacrifice 95% success for the 5% exception? Doesn’t sound like you’ll make it too far up the corporate ladder with that kind of thinking.
Just responded back to a recruiter and said: Hi <blank>, thanks for reaching out. Unfortunately, I've heard news that Amazon has a mandatory URA, and annually fires the bottom 10% of performers. They also practice "hire to fire" for engineers. Due to these practices, I will not be open to the role at Amazon. Best of luck in your search
You are my hero of the day
Holding an offer from them. Still contemplating...
If you haven't switched much before this, then you should take the offer I guess. In any case don't come with the expectation of lasting here.
Just spare yourself the trauma man