I wish more companies stack ranked. It would get rid of the dead weight slacker employees that get comfortable, suck at their job, but never leave and are difficult to fire. Amazon is smart.

Wow. I'd never heard of this hire-to-fire scheme. It makes sense only for certain trigger-happy companies, no? Most companies genuinely need the new hire, I'd imagine.

Anonymous wrote:I would think it's pretty rare! Most companies earnestly hire because they need positions filled.

I guess like a PP said Amazon or some of those tricky employers (Tesla? Marriott? Fannie/Freddie?) everyone knows who they are on here or anything involved in PE. I guess you would ask about PE during any interviews since they don't usually advertise that.

What is tricky about Fannie/Freddie?

If OP is in STEM and not biology, then look into a lateral to a defense lab - there are several locally. These are primarily civil service scientist positions.

OP, it seems like you have a few factors to consider beyond the stack ranking issue. You say that you and your husband are both Feds--is he also looking for work in the private sector? If so, what have his prospects been like? How close are you to turning 57, and will you have 10 years of service under your belt by that time? If you think you can make it to that point, early retirement might be a wise choice. Have you calculated how much severance you'd get if you do get RIFed?

I'd recommend that you apply to/interview at one or two of these places, not necessarily because you'd take a job there, but to learn more about that industry and as practice for interviews in the future. Maybe one of those will be your dream job and the folks you talk to will have a reasonable explanation for why they would plan to keep you on for real.

Anonymous wrote:I would never work at a company that has stacked rankings. If you meet the standard you keep your job with bonuses and promotions to distinguish the high performers. That is just a shitty way to run a company and is a pretty solid indicator that it is going to be a shitty place to work.

A lot of places have “up or out” unwritten policy, same thing.

Anonymous wrote:I would not go to a place like Amazon if you’d be upset about being pushed out in a year. My company hired a product manager from there. He’s very good, which is probably why he lasted 2+ years, but he said after two years he was one of the most senior people on his team.

On the plus side, they are very good with their processes and documentation, which they have to be because employees aren’t around long enough to create any institutional memory.

It’s not Amazon, but definitely in tech.

I mean my plan was to work in my scientific niche forever for the Federal govt, but they are planning a huge change in my agency and the writing on the wall that I either will be done in a year or definitely within 3 years.

Maybe politics will change, yada yada, but we are both Feds so want to diversify our risk since the job stability has been nuked.

I think almost all tech companies are now doing annual layoffs, maybe not advertised as stack ranking (this company doesn’t explicitly call it that, but I know they have had annual layoffs the last two years despite rising revenue). I think this is a risk at any modern private company now, except maybe defense contractors which are going to have a pipeline of work for a decade.

I would not go to a place like Amazon if you’d be upset about being pushed out in a year. My company hired a product manager from there. He’s very good, which is probably why he lasted 2+ years, but he said after two years he was one of the most senior people on his team.

On the plus side, they are very good with their processes and documentation, which they have to be because employees aren’t around long enough to create any institutional memory.

I would never work at a company that has stacked rankings. If you meet the standard you keep your job with bonuses and promotions to distinguish the high performers. That is just a shitty way to run a company and is a pretty solid indicator that it is going to be a shitty place to work.

Anonymous wrote:I would think it's pretty rare! Most companies earnestly hire because they need positions filled.

I guess like a PP said Amazon or some of those tricky employers (Tesla? Marriott? Fannie/Freddie?) everyone knows who they are on here or anything involved in PE. I guess you would ask about PE during any interviews since they don't usually advertise that.

You haven’t worked for private for a while.

I would think it's pretty rare! Most companies earnestly hire because they need positions filled.

I guess like a PP said Amazon or some of those tricky employers (Tesla? Marriott? Fannie/Freddie?) everyone knows who they are on here or anything involved in PE. I guess you would ask about PE during any interviews since they don't usually advertise that.

Amazon, huge risk. You may not make it even a year and it’s a rough lifestyle. Age is not on your side. Stay fed.

At age 40+, I would not leave a civil service job for that, unless one felt the civil service job is especially unstable.

Age discrimination is illegal, widespread, and very very difficult to prove in court. For OP's scenario, high risk of being hired, laid off, and then long-term unemployment (difficulty getting a new job).

You can’t sniff this out. The managers have a full time job which is to put up a show.

That being said, this dynamic is a must know how to navigate for modern workers.

I’m a Fed with a shaky position, but employed for now. I’m in my mid 50s (but no VERA b/c I worked private first)

I’m looking at some companies that have stack ranking, which have a cool mission, but I worry I am going to be caught in a “hire-to-fire” snare — a manager basically hires someone with the intention to fire to protect existing team.

Any idea how to sniff that out?! I really would love to work at these places and would get a chance to grow new skills, but if I’m let go in a year it will be devastating.