Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
pjbeam
throw1230
Everything here is true. And the article is really low effort.
LE and URA targets do change by organization and current HC goals. People need to go to Focus but in my experience it was the right thing to do. HR will absolutely help you to improve the performance and retain the individual if you think it's fixable.
From my experience, and I'm not saying this is case for all, people in Focus had undeniable performance problems that needed addressing. Stack ranking and quotas suck, and you feel like shit having to abide by them, but I've also seen managers being overprotective about underperforming employees. At some point, you have to do something about them because they'll bring the whole team down.
buran77
The problem with zero sum game performance reviews is that they're not about improving performance but about fitting everyone in the same boxes. And this usually results in ridiculous outcomes, some of which are particularly bad depending on how that "box fitting" is implemented.
> trade a HV3 down to an HV2 in order to keep an unpopular but otherwise fine performing engineer from getting an LE.
Like this where the company's goal is never to improve "unpopular but otherwise fine performing engineer" but rather to keep the boundary of the boxes. And this despite mounting evidence against such systems, and the known abuse with methods like hire to fire. To me this is always a sign of rotten leadership.
3a2d29
Can't add to Amazon, but wanted to add another example of stack ranking problems.
I and some friends worked for Capital One, which does stack ranking (but not the intense PIP that Amazon does).
Overall the stack ranking isn't a huge issue, but you get screwed because those boxes are subjective, which I always felt was the big issue with any system like this.
I worked easily 9-6 most days and got an average rating, while I buddy of mine in a different org would work maybe 4 hours a day and get the same rating. My org had intense work and my manager saw that as the norm.
Again not terrible, but I would be incredibly mad if say this same system conspired to putting me on PIP. Working more and longer hours but not meeting the definition of average for your specific manager and team.
civilized
> Stack ranking and quotas suck, and you feel like shit having to abide by them, but I've also seen managers being overprotective about underperforming employees.
Then those managers are bad at their jobs and should be PIP-ed even more ruthlessly.
It's always interesting to me how managers get a complete and utterly unexamined pass in these conversations. The bar is so, so low for them. Managerial incompetence can be breezily cited as the reason for a horrible policy, like managing out a fixed percentage of every team, and everyone considers it a fait accompli. After all, what would be the alternative? Managers actually being held accountable for doing the most important part of their jobs?
ICs must be held nose to the grindstone every minute of every day... but ya can't do anything about bad management!
tezza
Managers have their own Managers , and those are appraising them too.
Big Orgs have big re-orgs all the time and the entire management structure can change swiftly. Leaf node workers left untouched.
H8crilA
Being a (low level) manager sucks, though. At least if you're a competent programmer and could get by with a very similar pay with little involvement in politics.
throwde
Another former amazon manager here, I can confirm this. The rule of thumb was %6 URA target and a somewhat larger number into Focus.
I never saw any written documentation about the URA goal, HR probably wants to avoid creating a leakable paper trail. It always came down verbally from my L8. I heard rumors that Amazon's HR boss Galetti is the big advocate of the URA goal, but I was nowhere high enough to be part of those conversations.
dijonman2
How were managers rated?
stainforth
No, this is a good question - do managers share in this same kind of analysis
vaidhy
Only one nitpick - I remember LE as being around 10% of the org and was strongly suggested to put around 15% on focus so that 6% can be managed out, assuming 50% of people on focus would get out of it.
Source: former L7 manager, now happily out.
firstSpeaker
So, would an L7 engineer report to an L7 manager? Or there is a sort of limit on what levels would be direct or what levels?
pjbeam
Yes, N level managers manage ICs and managers to N level. There are occasional strange cases where there is a L5 manager with a L6 IC report because of a weird org structure (small engineering team assigned to a non-tech org), but that isn't normal.
pjbeam
You're right--it's been a while. Not all LEs were meant to leave.
jorblumesea
If you're in the industry and used to this, it "doesn't seem crazy" but it feels completely insane to most other professions. I only realized how completely lord of the flies it was after reading this and thinking about it if I was a teacher, doctor, lawyer, firefighter, journalist...
I can absolutely understand how this feels news worthy to those outside of tech.
It should be more controversial and the fact that people are saying "hey this is just how it works" is part of the problem.
anomaly_
I'm not sure where you're getting that impression from, law (and many other professions that operate under partnership like structures) often have an up or out system that is significantly more brutal than this. No room for expert operators to stay at a particular level, you get promoted or you leave.
Hammershaft
I understanding stack ranking has its benefits in upping the organizational incentives to cull nonperformers...
But holy fuck I have no desire to work in such an adversarial low trust environment.
JackFr
A friend’s father who was a manager at a giant US conglomerate in the 1960’s and 1970’s did have this to say about stack ranking — they were more willing to take a chance hiring someone from a non traditional background or with a weak resume but good interpersonal skills. Often times it wouldn’t work out but occasionally they might find a diamond in the rough, but they’d be willing to take the chance because they knew they’d be getting rid of people anyway.
wronglebowski
I think the main issue is to the more common person that paragraph read like as bunch of complete business nonsense. I have no idea what the vast majority of those abbreviations mean.
pjbeam
I missed SDM = software development manager and PIP = performance improvement plan. The rest I think are explicated above.
UIUC_06
Indeed. When you find yourself inventing TLAs for simple concepts, you might ask if it's just to obscure that you don't know what you're doing.
jamiek88
‘Unregretted attrition’! What absurdity.
It’s distinctly 1984 newspeak.
Amazonspeak is wild.
I couldn’t imagine a worse company to work for in any capacity. I don’t even want to shop there when I read this shit.
throw123123123
Reads like anti-newspeak - attrition is a bad word, and unregretted means company doesn't care about the people being fired.
christkv
How can I get hired to be the patsy. I’ll change my name so I can get rehired each year just to be fired. I’ll make it super easy to be the LE.
Cannon fodder for hire :)
herodotus
I am not a big fan of Amazon, but this is a silly article that uses inflammatory language ("A leaked trove of documents", "might shed light on the company’s controversial performance review process" and so on) to describe a completely standard way of doing annual employee reviews.
pizzathyme
Agree. This is similar at all big tech companies
krainboltgreene
> a completely standard way of doing annual employee reviews.
For like 20 companies out of thousands. This is in no way standard.
itsmemattchung
Ex-Amazon here.
Leaked documents aren't necessary to know that Amazon — among other FAANG companies — stack rank. But I will say that when Forte (the system used for performance reviews) first rolled out about 4-5 years ago, it was initially intended as a way to solicit feedback from your peers: and it was used that way.
At first.
But of course, within a few years, the system evolved and was eventually tied to your compensation.
yftsui
Forte was never a system for performance review, it was for peer compliments to make you feel good. The actual performance rating never use Forte - the performance review always happen before Forte due date.
throw1230
It's not tied to your compensation or ranking.
Your forte, when you discuss it with your manager, should give you some growth areas that you should improve. If in your next talent review, you haven't made much progress, that will contribute to your ranking naturally but that's about it
ArrayBoundCheck
The very few people who I known worked there seemed to like it. Is there any particular reason why you left? I know one of them said he only left because they were overworking him
petra
Amazon still to be able execute very well. Do you see a deterioration the last few years?
karaterobot
Your employer isn't your friend, or your mom. Of course they want you to provide value to the company in exchange for money.
> Factors that can boost an employee’s score include being reactive to customer needs, acting as a mentor, providing new ideas in discussions, and exhibiting a strong and adaptable work ethic.
Never mind, this is outrageous. Somebody should put a stop to these monsters.
Apocryphon
Tech companies posture as families all of the time. But Amazon probably doesn’t, to be fair.
The reason why this concerns people is because Amazon’s approach to worker metrics is notorious for all sorts of bad effects, from warehouse staff pissing into bottles to PIP culture among its engineering staff.
Is there any sign that these KPIs will be used in a less stringent way?
redanddead
That lack of bathroom breaks really hurt Amazon's reputation
vaidhy
This is really the amazon leadership principles - customer obsession, hire and develop the best, invent and simplify and deliver results :)
mabbo
What made me upset about the "Forte" process at Amazon was that managers deadlines for submitting their evaluations of their people was earlier than the deadline to submit peer feedback.
Managers made whatever decisions they wanted.
The previous system, "Evolution" had many issues, no doubt, but it made peer feedback a major input into the evaluations.
BeetleB
This is only a tad bit more formalized than what most companies use for performance evaluation. This doesn't seem news worthy at all. In fact, it's at least heartening to know that there is some process for evaluation, as opposed to companies I've worked at where it's mostly how your manager and his manager "feel" about you.
sgift
> as opposed to companies I've worked at where it's mostly how your manager and his manager "feel" about you.
From reading the article that's exactly what Amazon is doing. How does your manager feel about you, how do your coworkers feel about you, what do you think about yourself. Just with more ceremony, so it doesn't look like a bunch of dice rolls.
closeparen
It would be remarkable if the assessments of other skilled practitioners familiar with your work were no better than “dice rolls.”
alangibson
The only way to deal with such systems is to accept that you're in an adversarial relationship and act accordingly. If you're an employee, organize to get some power on your side of the table.
IMHO the best way to work in tech is as a partially committed, outside contractor. Your counterparty has little leverage over you because you don't have all your eggs in one basket
snotrockets
But as a contractor you'll get about half the TC of what a full time employee would get for the same amount of work. And there isn't as much leverage as you imply, because there's the non trivial cost of getting new clients.
civilized
In my experience, contractors spend the majority of their time fixing their own foreseeable mistakes.
malwarebytess
Everyone here thinks it's normal because they're within the system. Those of us outside of it can see it's insane and dehumanizing.
khazhoux
Which part do you consider dehumanizing?
I've been on both sides (IC + manager), though not at Amazon. As a manager, it's always crystal clear that not every team member contributes equally, often by a wide margin. When it comes time to give out monetary rewards and title increases, how would you propose people be evaluated?
Underphil
The only part that really makes me shudder is the thought of working to align with Amazon's 'principles'. Sounds like an oxymoron to me.
JCM9
Company identifies its best performers and then pays them more than others. Why is this controversial?
Is this the “everyone gets a trophy” generation shocked by how the world really works?
Shared404
Side note: what generation do you think started handing out trophies to everyone because parents couldn't stand their kids not getting anything?
No one I know raised on "everyone gets an award" has done anything but mock it.
dls2016
I tend to agree with people mocking this pov, but working as a university instructor… holy hell! There really are some very entitled and shameless people out there. I doubt it’s generational, though.
bigbillheck
I was a university instructor during grad school back in the 90s, there were plenty of entitled and shameless people back then too.
AgentOrange1234
Amusingly the Forte system itself is very much an implementation of “everyone gets an award.”
Every peer review calls out someone’s “superpower” and the Leadership Principle they excel at. (It also has some suggestions for improvement.)
There’s really very little to complain about in Amazon’s process except for the curve fitting.
no_wizard
It’s near consensus if not full consensus that Amazons number one problem is the URA and work environment that fosters. Even Microsoft reversed course on this after Nadella took over. It’s what I think has lead to their high attrition issues
DragonStrength
The issue is high-performing teams can never last more than 18 months at Amazon because someone is getting sacrificed on the altar of URA, which then demoralizes the other employees. Amazon has a bad reputation as a place to work because it is highly political since everyone is always trying to avoid getting axed. You end up with the people with the fewest options left behind after any project ships.
undefined
didibus
The issue is that they evaluate people relatively to each other, but only within their own team, though they try a little bit to do it at the director level.
If you're the worst of the best, you might be paid the same as the best of the worst in a different team, even if you're way better then them.
I think a lot of people would prefer an absolute measure, like did you deliver what people expected you to do deliver for the role and position you were hired for, aka, are you doing the job they need.
If it was an absolute scale, then ideally someone that's the worst of the best would still be paid more than someone that's the best of the worst.
But, like with interviews, I think it's just a hard problem. Evaluating performance is not something anyone has found a good way to do it. Wanting to do it seems reasonable, but being accurate at it isn't easily achievable, there'll always be injustice due to the innacuracies of the process.
lijogdfljk
I imagine because, as i've heard not experienced, Amazon purposefully tries to churn employees. Sounds awful to work for.
JCM9
Why is it bad that Amazon seeks to cycle out the lowest performers? Is that not what any high performing organization does?
I’m not aware of any very high performing organization that doesn’t have some form of cycling out low performers. And places that don’t do this, or promote based on silly metrics like years of service, consistently are places plagued with poor standards and performance overall.
High performing individuals also loathe the underperformers and want them gone. They drag down standards, create more work for others, impact morale. I’ve seen too many orgs that don’t chase out poorly performing people. What happens? The good performers flee.
throwde
Because it encourages pathological behaviour.
Amazon's attrition goal is an open secret everybody knows. Once everybody knows that someone else's success is your failure, people start backstabbing eachother. They stop helping eachother.
The problem is that the attrition target is a quota that all of us had to fill.
et-al
More concretely, imagine you're on a team of 4 and management says the lowest performer by some metric will be cut at the end of the quarter and replaced with some other random person.
Does this sound like a healthy environment? It creates perverse incentives where folks become more concerned about outperforming the next person than actually working toward the primary goal of shipping a product.
If your goal is to whittle a group of people down to one, then stacked ranking is the right tool. However most, if not all, organizations are created to achieve larger tasks. And this requires the cohesion of a team. If you think of only individuals, then you'll miss the forest for the trees.
microtherion
1. Is it actually good to fire the lowest performers? In some cases, yes, if those performers actually add negative value by creating more problems than they solve. But if the simply are less productive than others, but still add positive value overall, maybe less so. You may lose institutional knowledge, team cohesion, or other intangibles that do not show in metrics.
2. Does your system actually correctly identify the lowest performers? If you believe that, you have more faith in metrics than I do.
3. Does every team have lowest performers that should be fired? I think that is the real toxic component here. I'm sure that all of us have occasionally met an underperformer that the company would have been better off without. But an automatism that every year, a blood tribute of N% shall be paid leads to all sorts of perverse incentives.
rxbudian
Stack Rank is bad is because mid to low performing developers will put a lot of effort to not get fired. That means they're not fully putting all their focus and effort on the company's goals. Their views will focus on short term gain/success because they expect to eventually get fired. They'll try to get an accomplishment notch on their resume and preferring speed over quality and design. Hopefully their managers will see their accomplishments over the other brown nosing under performers and won't be around for the fallout of their low quality work. That's only for the ones who have hope. The hopeless ones who knows they can't make it won't care about the quality of their work and would focus more on finding another job.
voxl
Performance cannot be evaluated in a vacuum, and likely has as much to do with your environment as it does your experience and talent. A _high_ performance company, if such a tech company even exists, would do everything in their power not to lose institutional knowledge. Throwing out a low performer is the wrong tact if you have more products and teams then you know what to do with it, it is much better to shuffle that employee into a new environment a couple of times to see if anything sticks.
Apocryphon
How high performing was the stack ranking regime of Ballmer-era Microsoft? Thought it was industry consensus that stack ranking led to a toxic, highly political organization propped up by perverse incentives. This is history repeating.
PuppyTailWags
This assumes an organization can effectively identify who are the underperformers of a company. I've yet to see this proven out.
specialist
Sure. But is "Rank and Yank" the best strategy for that?
sgift
The interesting part is not that they identify their best performers, but how they try to do it. This tells us something about the company, what they value and so on.
mirekrusin
Self review? Manager and peer's review? What's "interesting" in pejorative terms here?
throwaway743
Which generation is that? The ones who had a much easier time affording college, houses, making a living (even just with a high school degree), etc, and just think everyone can pick themselves up by their bootstraps? Or is this just another low hanging cheap snub at millennials and gen z?
Tbh, I'm a millennial, but always thought "everyone gets a trophy" was a crock, as did many of my peers.
What's also a crock though is the world we've been left with, but that's also become just a cheap low hanging generational quib that is counterproductive. Then again, it does actually provide some sense of foresight
noasaservice
> Is this the “everyone gets a trophy” generation shocked by how the world really works?
In my experience, it was the boomers who did this sort of shit to us millenials. I remember the 2nd grade softball games that we just wanted to have fun, and the younger boomers (our parents) then got all of us participation trophies for.. reasons. I know at least 3 in my team that intentionally left the worthless trophies underneath the benches. They were nothing to us.
We 2nd graders just wanted to play ball. Sure, do points (we weren't "allowed to"), and play quick, mix up teams. But no, it must be structured. My generation was also the start of that crap too.
And speaking of participation trophies, schools tried to do that crap too with "gold stickers" on perfect homework. I mean, who cares? I just wanted it done. Fellow students did similar with rolling eyes, like whatever.
juunpp
Where are the documents?
These "news" sites never link their sources.
glimshe
Nothing to see here, folks. All big tech companies have similar nonsense, "objective" performance review processes.
WalterBright
The reason for that is straightforward. It's to protect the company from lawsuits about unfair pay practices.
phendrenad2
Seems like a pretty standard performance review process. This is only news because it's a "big tech" company.
Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
Edit: Had wrong % for LE.
Former Amazon SDM here. The actual rating process didn't strike me as something all that controversial. I had to do extensive write ups for all of my reports--this was standard stuff: what went well ("superpowers"), what didn't ("growth areas"), and some actionable ideas for improvement.
Then I had to pick numerical scores for "impact" and "potential" that were fed into a black box that resulted in an "overall value" score--this score is meant to be mysterious to the employees but it's the worst kept secret in Amazon at this point. OV ranged from LE (least effort/effective) at the low end, through HV 1,2,3 (high value) which is essentially "meets", and then TT ("top tier") at the high end.
~10-15% of a director org is supposed to be LE, up to 20% TT, and the rest of people distributed through the HV levels. I proposed these ratings to the bigger org that were then agreed to or adjusted by HR and higher management in a formal manager meeting.
The infamous URA quota of ~6% unregretted attrition (PIP) is meant to be met through managing out LE employees. The process starts with a PIP-lite called "Focus" and goes to the real PIP at the next stage, called "Pivot".
Many people got out of Focus, very few get out of Pivot. The part of the process I had trouble with, which contributed to me leaving, is the curve fitting of ratings for people. I had to do things like trade a HV3 down to an HV2 in order to keep an unpopular but otherwise fine performing engineer from getting an LE.
The stories people tell about hire to fire and unfair Pivot are overblown in my experience but not false. From what I've seen, the company will find pliant people and lean on them hard for more and more and more and then manage them out when then start to falter.
Lot of nuance to this--I have no love for Amazon and I'm happy to have moved on. It is definitely a meat grinder. That said articles like this are pretty low effort on my view.