I have an upcoming interview for a Meta Leadership role. noticed a recurring theme on other posts that Meta interviewers have an obsessive interest in how a candidate goes about terminating low performers. There are lots of POVs on this. What is the meta gospel on this subject? (E.g. hire slow, fire quickly... or invest a lot in training people and fire as a last resort... or try to manage out) Thanks TC 300 #Meta #interview
Standard corporate jargon. Help them find a role that suits them better. Sometimes it’s better to let people go and give them a recommendation based on their strengths so they can succeed elsewhere, versus they being unhappy in a role where they are unable to perform.
It’s not an obsession, it’s a requirement in any large company. If you have a low performer, why? Is it fixable? If so, help him figure it out. If not, set clear expectations and manage him out if he doesn’t meet them. Every hour you spend with an unrecoverable low performer is an hour you should spend helping your high performers become even better. Bad managers are either too sympathetic to have a real conversation or too focused on being popular and a nice guy rather than a force multiplier.
🫳 🎤
Completely agree. I tend to lean more on managing out than firing. Do you think that would be seen as a weak approach in the Meta culture?
Don't know if this is necessarily unique to Meta. While I shy away from companies with a PIP culture, I have also seen teams of great people implode because a manager doesn't manage out quickly or effectively. You shouldn't go straight to firing someone, but once it is clear you can't stall or you will lose good performers who are picking up the slack and not seeing any consequences.
I’ve recently signed a Stripe offer. How do you find the culture at Stripe?
I have grappled with this question throughout my career. There is no answer
Solid humble answer