Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Two months ago there was a news that raised some eye-brows, "Amazon has a quota for the number of employees it would be happy to see leave (businessinsider.com)" [1]. Some of the comments were quite negative, reading it as a dehumanizing practice with no clear upsides. Re-upping my reply [2]:

The article paints a needlessly bleak picture.

The neutral reading of the practice is, "managers are able to take riskier hiring decisions, because they are given an allowed turnover rate".

Which surprisingly enough is a solution to the ever-growing worry of false negatives in hiring - i.e., overlooking good candidates whos resume or interview did not shine strongly enough, or who perhaps are from a shunned, misunderstood culture, or who otherwise did not fit the generic hiring practice prevalent in the society. This solution allows an organization to make riskier hiring decisions at a well understood rate - hopefully catching the false negatives that did slip through competing organizations' hiring process.

--

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27369910

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27370538



The issue is with setting a quota as “must” vs “acceptable”

If you “must” find a way to pick fault with your employees because you can only give out 1 “exceeds expectations” and at least 1 “meets most” then you’re likely creating a toxic environment from that.

Similar to telling managers that they “probably should” thin the herd.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: