Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also have never heard of hire-to-fire either.

Every corporate manager/executive I know is hesitant to fire people due to potential litigation.

Well join the real world. My old start up we would often in early days hire two candidates same exact job and let them fight it out over the 90 day probation period and keep best one.

I worked at big banks in past like JP Morgan and they often fill roles when they knew layoffs were coming with open reqs with any old body. Then when asked to lay off they had these people to can to protect their own.

My favorite one back in lvery ate 2007 my friend hired in Accounting working for Controller who was a lifer and she gave her higher pay then her and a higher bonus Spring 2008. She was newest and higheset paid person in Controller dept. When October 2008 hit they had to cut costs quickly and they targeted the highest paid people and newest people first. Which she was both and she got walked out the door. She was set up from begining.

Oh my goodness

Wow I didn’t know this was a thing but I see it each year at my school. They recycle new ppl often. Embarrass them and put them through cultish rituals 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.

Anonymous wrote:I also have never heard of hire-to-fire either.

Every corporate manager/executive I know is hesitant to fire people due to potential litigation.

Well join the real world. My old start up we would often in early days hire two candidates same exact job and let them fight it out over the 90 day probation period and keep best one.

I worked at big banks in past like JP Morgan and they often fill roles when they knew layoffs were coming with open reqs with any old body. Then when asked to lay off they had these people to can to protect their own.

My favorite one back in lvery ate 2007 my friend hired in Accounting working for Controller who was a lifer and she gave her higher pay then her and a higher bonus Spring 2008. She was newest and higheset paid person in Controller dept. When October 2008 hit they had to cut costs quickly and they targeted the highest paid people and newest people first. Which she was both and she got walked out the door. She was set up from begining.

Two butts one seat approach.

BTW a lot of start up are pretty strict on 90 day probation. My start up jobs we had some folks who were just offboarded at end of 90 days as did not clear probation. They get two weeks pay in leu of notice and off you go. Not a firing so to speak as you had KPIs to complete in first 90 days to clear probation.

Once employed that job after 90 days you had some job security. If you did not meet goals in a future quarterly period you were put on a PIP and if did not clear PIP by end of next quarter then off boarded.

The PIP was not a death sentence as they wanted you to clear the PIP. But even if you clear PIP you were now a lower ranking person who in next lay off will get picked off. That start up I lasted 8 quarters before I quit and every quarter end could be a PIP. Kinda stressful.

But that is life in the big leagues

I also have never heard of hire-to-fire either.

Every corporate manager/executive I know is hesitant to fire people due to potential litigation.

Anonymous wrote: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.

My company doesn’t stack rank but we can get rid of dead weight any time as we see fit. My manager can also get rid of me anytime she sees fit. No hard feelings.

I've worked at both a private sector organization with forced ranking and the federal government.

The government's way is far better for employee efficiency. In a forced ranking environment, employees who survive and thrive are spending about 1/4 to 1/3 of their time each week on things like building their internal brand, protecting their territory, and CYA.

Any lost productivity in the government from employees not carrying their own weight is more than balanced out by the fact that the remaining employees are focused on the mission and not the security of their jobs (well at least until this year).

Anonymous wrote: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.

I work at such a place.

Mostly it allows people to get rid of people they don't like or can't figure out what to with after a re-org.

It's not always a productivity vs. deadwood exercise.

It also destroys morale in the average group because they know if someone dislikes you, you'll be the target for rating down. Average is the largest bucket of people so destabilizing their morale has consequences.