This kind of system is how you get the consistency and excellence that microsoft are known for.

i worked at fb a long time ago, it was already exactly like how you describe. everyone was optimizing for their performance review—juicing metrics and prioritizing for the short term. accountability only existed in a 6-month cycle.

Great for creating a lot of churn and quick-fix make-work. Rather than deploying a single comprehensive solution to a persistent problem, just take credit for fixing the symptoms over and over and over again.

Just did a review and we successfully removed KPIs from our project by pointing out that we could hit the targets and cost the company money or we could operate as required instead of trying to please metrics that, while relevant at a surface level, are impacted by external forces.

Nothing a little reprogramming can't fix.

Also with the abandonment of DEI initiatives, there are no longer any protections for Lizard-Amercians.

Didn't he die just today trying to suck on his own penis? Hard to keep up with the news these days.

They may inadvertently focus on people who spoke against the new "pro free speech" of Facebook...

Its most aggressive at the higher tiers, because promotions are a tool of employee retention and "flattening" the management stack is a good way of pushing out the experienced, expensive older employees. You'll also see a lot more outsourcing of department rolls, as C-levels opt for lowest-bidder contractors you can hire/fire inside a business cycle than big teams of veteran staffers who sit on the payroll thick or thin. That means fewer mid-level managers, as the actual process of team management is sent overseas or subcontracted out to temporary management firms.

McDonald Douglas and Yahoo both executed on this strategy back in the 90s to great effect. Stock valuations boomed, because they were able to create the illusion of cost cutting without impacting quarterly revenue. All it cost them was mountains of technical debt. And then nothing bad happened to either company.

I'm not sure if you're up to date on how layoffs have been done lately in tech, but management has been primary targets in layoffs. Full layers of management have been removed, and middle managers have often been expected to take on twice as many reports for no increase in compensation.

No comments on the C-level part which is largely correct

Funny enough, it’s all content moderators and fact checkers.

What you can end up with is a lot of new hires queued up for the firing line. The "bottom 5%" is, initially, the people in the office who are currently in a slump. But then you bring on a load of fresh new hires who have little experience and a lot of pressure. They burn out fast and become the next "bottom 5%".

Meanwhile, the more politically and technically savvy learn to survive by creating make-work tasks that look good on performance metrics but do little for the firm as a whole. Their superiors approve, because a team that is constantly appearing busy is more important than a team that's producing anything of value. So you end up with these little entrenched departmental fiefs, dedicated to making themselves irreplaceable at the expense of the company as a whole.

There's a ton written on the Sears collapse in the early 00s, where this exact dynamic played out. Managers turned against one another, because stack ranking mattered more than inter-department cohesion or bottom line figures. The company went from a network of high end retailers to a shitty outlet stores over the course of a decade.

I heard vice president Donald Trump might be interested if president Musk will let him

Probably the metaverse crew. I doubt that's God's work.

i show you mark zuckerberg

Number of likes.