Some Amazon managers say they hire people they intend to fire later just to meet their turnover goal
Definitely the most toxic company I've ever worked for.
https://www.businessinsider.com/top-stories-amazon-hire-to-fire-james-charles-lawsuit-wells-fargo-exodus-2021-5
The practice is internally called "hire to fire," according to three Amazon managers.
Inside Amazon managers' "hire to fire" practice
Amazon has a goal to get rid of a certain percentage of employees every year - and three managers told Insider they felt so much pressure to meet the goal that they hired people just to fire them:
"We might hire people that we know we're going to fire, just to protect the rest of the team," one manager said.
The practice is informally called "hire to fire," in which managers hire people, internally or externally, they intend to fire within a year, just to help meet their annual turnover target, called unregretted attrition (URA). A manager's URA target is the percentage of employees the company wouldn't regret seeing leave, one way or the other.
The existence of the practice in at least some parts of the company shows how Amazon's system of requiring managers to hit a target attrition goal every year can foster controversial norms and practices.
#pip #amazon #aws
comments
We all know that politics are in all corporations, but in that place they take it to a psychopath level.
At the staying of my career, I worked with an incompetent manager. They weren't a bad person like you'll hear in all the posts, just technically incompetent. They were let go in a year. Post that, I've always worked with good managers, and seen good managers (across my team and sister org), had access to some amazing mentors, all still in Amazon, and good teammates. My work hours have always been good, and taking time off is always encouraged. I interact with multiple engineers in our org, and AFAIK, never gotten a feedback of toxicity.
Wrt pip etc, I've seen how no engineer were let go in our team when they were all performing appropriately, and how we have had a few cases where there was a clear expectation miss, and they were given early feedback.
I can't comment on TC as that's pretty dependent on your time of joining and rating. It's not a system I'm supportive of, but it's worked out ok for me (~450-500k based on how rsu's swing). With the rsu growth, your performance just doesn't matter for TC which is weird.
I'm sure there are bad teams/managers/work patterns. But Amazon is too big a company to make this general statement. If you are feeling stuck, get a mentor, move to a different team or leave the company (whatever works best for you and your constraints).
As for Amazon being too big to judge, your point is valid. We can definitely judge the company, but what I wanted to bring it is that there are good teams as well that you should look out for (and all are hiring). This reply is meant for those people who feel they are stuck and see no way out. I'm just hoping they consider some of these options I mentioned and move to greener pastures.
2. Any
3. Their manager’s org needs to be 60+ (to then identify the bottom 3 people to let go)
Have they just been successful in playing the political game and building empires or is the RSU refresh just that strong for them?