(no title)
gradstudent | 1 year ago
You (=hypothetical manager, please excuse second-person tense) use your managerial skills to make a decision, which considers metrics and other contributing factors. Then you write a justification which you defend, to higher ups and to those who weren't promoted. Because that's your job.
jjav|1 year ago
What happens next is this manager gets a low performance rating themselves, for making decisions not backed by metrics. So next year they conform.
ryandrake|1 year ago
eesmith|1 year ago
It's a lot easier than applying back pressure, fighting for your reports, or quitting in solidarity.
"Sorry, Hugo and Maryna, you two only got the Fields medal while Anton and Alain got a Nobel Prize, so we'll have to let you go for your under-performance."
Arainach|1 year ago
* Corporate says "here are the buckets. They should match at the VP level since that's a large pile of people"
* VPs tell their Directors to match these buckets, who recurse further
* L1/2 Manager Alice says "my team is too small, this isn't how statistics work, I want an exception"
* If the claim actually gets escalated all the way to the VP, the VP says "tough, fit the buckets".* Alice is now a troublemaker in VP/Director's eyes
* If Alice and everyone who feels the same way quits in protest, nothing changes except that the org is full of yes men, none of whom are even trying to push for changes in the system any more.
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]