This story is somehow even worse than the headline.
The CEO wanted to create an elaborate system to rank employees based on their engagement in certain tools like Jira, Confluence, and company chat. Don’t chat enough? Your ranking is low and you might get laid off. Should have chatted more, sorry.
Even stranger, the CEO claims he wanted to let employees view their own engagement scores so they at least had a chance to pump up their numbers (time to spam more e-mails and refresh more Confluence pages so I don’t get fired!) but he went on record in another article blaming the development team for not releasing that feature:
> The company also planned to implement the so-called “digital mirror,” so every employee could learn what AI thinks of their work and engagement. However, the development team wasn’t enthusiastic about this idea, so its rollout is pending.
That’s right, the development team who works on the employee ranking tool “wasn’t enthusiastic” about letting other employees see their ranking or how it works, so they’re withholding it from the company supposedly against the wishes of the CEO. The CEO is then going on record, in public, blaming those developers for not letting these other people see their own scores before they get fired.
This CEO sounds like the type of person who wants to be in charge but also wants to dodge as much responsibility as possible. Create an algorithm to fire people, then send them an impersonal e-mail letting them know the algorithm has chosen them for firing. Then explain that he wanted to let them see their score and have a chance to react, but those mean developers weren’t enthusiastic about the idea so, sorry, you can’t see it.
I’m sure the developers of the secret employee ranking system have high scores for themselves, somehow.
If your firm is using Office 365 / Microsoft Azure products, your managers have similar capabilities available to them. This is one of the marketed uses of Office 365 and other Microsoft products - monitoring "productivity" via metrics such as Teams posts and responses, Azure DevOps activity, etc.
I mention this because it doesn't require bringing together disparate systems to monitor your employees.
This includes monitoring what files you opened on OneDrive, when you opened them, etc.
If you are using Office 365 at work, I highly recommend going to delve.office.com and taking a look.
Edited to clarify Office 365 + Microsoft Azure products
> You received this email because my big data team analyzed your activities in Jira, Confluence, Gmail, chats, documents, dashboards and tagged you as unengaged and unproductive employees
What a terrible place to work and measure of productivity.
And let's be clear: those are all the things that productive employees avoid like the plague.
What are you producing which is correlated with using any of those services?
If more information comes out, it'll be a useful case study in using measures anti-correlated with your actual business objectives.
This seems an extremely common practice by middle-management, whose activity is largely anti-correlated with aggregate business production. (Ie., middle-management activity should be operating at a minimum necessary for production; increasing it will cause productivity to drop).
Just watch as employees everywhere start using bots to keep their engagement stats up. Boards will start to have GPT generated fluff that drowns out any residual use those tools had.
>Later, he adds that Xsolla plans to continue to reduce its budget by 10 percent until things pick back up and the company starts seeing at least 40 percent growth.
> He suggests that the layoffs were the result of Xsolla's slowing growth during the past six months, which he appears to blame in part on reduced productivity due to remote work measures. According to that interview, Xsolla increased its revenue by 80 percent last year (likely related to the pandemic-driven growth many game companies saw in 2020) but within the last six months, Xsolla's growth has dipped below 40 percent year-over-year.
Does it make sense to expect growth to return to the previous growth rate after a growth spurt?
Either way, seems a bit unengaged as an executive to rely on algorithms for lay offs. But maybe the vague wording is avoiding liability & the input data includes things like performance reviews, meanwhile they were looking to downsize for whatever reason. Some of the remarks come off as rather jejune tho, so there's a definite lack of tact here
edit: seems they're expecting consistent 40% growth.. a bit unrealistic
Also completely ignoring that engagement and productivity drops may be quite real and expected given burnout from being full remote from people who do not do well in that environment for a variety of reasons (too isolated, distracting or unsafe home environment, covid-related depression, etc).
What has this company done to address that with this exercise? What precedent does that set? If you lose a family member and are disengaged as might be expected, will you be canned "because the AI said so" without your context being considered?
Was the algorithm also able to identify the senior executive who was responsible for his firm hiring 150 unengaged and unproductive people, or is their big data team still working on that one?
Incredibly naive tone, to the point I cannot see how a CEO would see this action as beneficial to the company. Is this corporate sabotage from the top?
Plenty of history to see what happens next. Remaining employees of value will now put all of their efforts into finding a new role. The ones that stay will struggle to keep the lights on. Both will actively game these preposterous algorithms. Some might even sabotage from below.
I would fear a mistake in these engagement metrics. When I tried doing this on different teams the amount of "gotchas" made it useless.
EG:
a) Jim has the most slack messages. Reason: Jim has a bot that slacks different team members on the status of the build.
b) Larry attends the most gcalendar events. Reason: Larry auto accepts all events. However, Ryan auto cancels all events after 4pm but attends them anyway.
c) Sally has the least amount of PRs to the main repro. Reason: Sally works on a differet git repro dealing with a different microservice.
d) Jeff contributed the most new lines of code. Reason: Jeff added a package under a vendor/ folder. Also! Remember Mark changed from his personal github account to a company github account 3 months ago.
e) Linda is "online" the most on slack. Reason: Linda's ubuntu workspace does not autolog her out correctly when the system is idle.
f) Mike has the most PRs. Reason: Mike has an auto merge bot to merge release into production.
I don't know what to take away from this except that this CEO is evidently a complete fucking idiot. Those metrics are so easily gamed; how could someone not understand that?
Seems like they plan on cutting costs regardless. Today it was "not enough Jira comments", next time it'll be something else. It's not like anyone's going to ask to audit the algorithm.
> The letter goes on to note that Xsolla has partnered with multiple HR agencies to "help you find a good place where you will earn more and work even less".
Sure, if I worked on this company I would like this option even if I was considered a "engaged employee" by their own classification.
What if this is, in fact, a good thing? This AI-obsession allows employees to game the system, play around the rules and optimize for the metrics that can be easily discovered. That is terrible, but is it any worse than the current state of corporate politics, where privileged people form their own clubs and prevent anyone else from joining?
The AI, at least, doesn't see color, gender, sexual orientation, what hobbies you like or you don't like. The machine, as long as you play by its rules, is fair. And I seem to prefer the machine rules, than the rules at the boys club.
Please ready the article! It is absolutely stuffed with absurd comments by the CEO. The only explanation I can fathom is that in the remote-work world someone impersonated the CEO as a troll.
How did the company grow to pay 500employee's wages?
Low Russian salaries and rich American customers?
Seems like a company that makes mobile games. The culture around those companies seems built around hiring a lot when a game takes off, then slashing headcount when growth tails off and ad dollars fall.
I have some questions as to whether things are going well at Xsolla. They handle payments for Roblox, and I constantly have problems giving them money. I have three kids playing Roblox who each spend money there at least a couple of times per month.
[+] [-] jfk13|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trollied|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PragmaticPulp|4 years ago|reply
The CEO wanted to create an elaborate system to rank employees based on their engagement in certain tools like Jira, Confluence, and company chat. Don’t chat enough? Your ranking is low and you might get laid off. Should have chatted more, sorry.
Even stranger, the CEO claims he wanted to let employees view their own engagement scores so they at least had a chance to pump up their numbers (time to spam more e-mails and refresh more Confluence pages so I don’t get fired!) but he went on record in another article blaming the development team for not releasing that feature:
> The company also planned to implement the so-called “digital mirror,” so every employee could learn what AI thinks of their work and engagement. However, the development team wasn’t enthusiastic about this idea, so its rollout is pending.
That’s right, the development team who works on the employee ranking tool “wasn’t enthusiastic” about letting other employees see their ranking or how it works, so they’re withholding it from the company supposedly against the wishes of the CEO. The CEO is then going on record, in public, blaming those developers for not letting these other people see their own scores before they get fired.
This CEO sounds like the type of person who wants to be in charge but also wants to dodge as much responsibility as possible. Create an algorithm to fire people, then send them an impersonal e-mail letting them know the algorithm has chosen them for firing. Then explain that he wanted to let them see their score and have a chance to react, but those mean developers weren’t enthusiastic about the idea so, sorry, you can’t see it.
I’m sure the developers of the secret employee ranking system have high scores for themselves, somehow.
[+] [-] daggersandscars|4 years ago|reply
I mention this because it doesn't require bringing together disparate systems to monitor your employees.
This includes monitoring what files you opened on OneDrive, when you opened them, etc.
If you are using Office 365 at work, I highly recommend going to delve.office.com and taking a look.
Edited to clarify Office 365 + Microsoft Azure products
[+] [-] Quickshooter|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snarf21|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelcampbell|4 years ago|reply
These days, that's quite an accomplishment.
[+] [-] lupire|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BFLpL0QNek|4 years ago|reply
What a terrible place to work and measure of productivity.
[+] [-] mjburgess|4 years ago|reply
What are you producing which is correlated with using any of those services?
If more information comes out, it'll be a useful case study in using measures anti-correlated with your actual business objectives.
This seems an extremely common practice by middle-management, whose activity is largely anti-correlated with aggregate business production. (Ie., middle-management activity should be operating at a minimum necessary for production; increasing it will cause productivity to drop).
[+] [-] swiley|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lordnacho|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ssss11|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dncornholio|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chippy|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tonyedgecombe|4 years ago|reply
The flogging will continue until morale improves.
[+] [-] __s|4 years ago|reply
Does it make sense to expect growth to return to the previous growth rate after a growth spurt?
Either way, seems a bit unengaged as an executive to rely on algorithms for lay offs. But maybe the vague wording is avoiding liability & the input data includes things like performance reviews, meanwhile they were looking to downsize for whatever reason. Some of the remarks come off as rather jejune tho, so there's a definite lack of tact here
edit: seems they're expecting consistent 40% growth.. a bit unrealistic
[+] [-] shostack|4 years ago|reply
What has this company done to address that with this exercise? What precedent does that set? If you lose a family member and are disengaged as might be expected, will you be canned "because the AI said so" without your context being considered?
[+] [-] rcurry|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldcode|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawaycuriou|4 years ago|reply
Plenty of history to see what happens next. Remaining employees of value will now put all of their efforts into finding a new role. The ones that stay will struggle to keep the lights on. Both will actively game these preposterous algorithms. Some might even sabotage from below.
[+] [-] ransom1538|4 years ago|reply
EG:
a) Jim has the most slack messages. Reason: Jim has a bot that slacks different team members on the status of the build.
b) Larry attends the most gcalendar events. Reason: Larry auto accepts all events. However, Ryan auto cancels all events after 4pm but attends them anyway.
c) Sally has the least amount of PRs to the main repro. Reason: Sally works on a differet git repro dealing with a different microservice.
d) Jeff contributed the most new lines of code. Reason: Jeff added a package under a vendor/ folder. Also! Remember Mark changed from his personal github account to a company github account 3 months ago.
e) Linda is "online" the most on slack. Reason: Linda's ubuntu workspace does not autolog her out correctly when the system is idle.
f) Mike has the most PRs. Reason: Mike has an auto merge bot to merge release into production.
on and on....
[+] [-] throwaway14356|4 years ago|reply
vlad didnt open any applications for 6 days
olga puts in a lot of "activity" 3.5 hours per day 4 days per week
those places exist!
[+] [-] jasonladuke0311|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rchaud|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldtea|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Macha|4 years ago|reply
Maybe a bit of motivation for them to move to their parent company's payment system.
[+] [-] someelephant|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] m45t3r|4 years ago|reply
Sure, if I worked on this company I would like this option even if I was considered a "engaged employee" by their own classification.
[+] [-] hatchnyc|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mikeb85|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jakearmitage|4 years ago|reply
The AI, at least, doesn't see color, gender, sexual orientation, what hobbies you like or you don't like. The machine, as long as you play by its rules, is fair. And I seem to prefer the machine rules, than the rules at the boys club.
[+] [-] noasaservice|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] the-dude|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lupire|4 years ago|reply
How did the company grow to pay 500employee's wages? Low Russian salaries and rich American customers?
[+] [-] rchaud|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fnordfnordfnord|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a3n|4 years ago|reply
This also makes room for the algorithm to bring in its own people.
Best strategy for a remaining employee is to suck up to the algorithm and try to transfer in to its team.