To be fair, many inside the company are very pleased with Mayer’s series of moves to improve morale and that her high profile in tech has resulted in a shiny reflected glow for Yahoo. Yourright, but this has apparently not taken place. Thus, by definition, they should be classified as ‘occasionally misses.’ Two such classifications, and that person should be let go, amiright? How about we set an example for the rest of the company and can a few of the top execs who miss (or who sandbag their goals to make sure they ‘meet’)? Will the ‘occasionally misses’ classification apply to L2 and 元 execs also? At every goals meeting, we find senior staff who missed even the 70% goals. Why didn’t any of this happen here at Yahoo, a place that keeps stressing the importance of transparency? Will we continue to lose staff each quarter like we did last week? And is the rating system being reviewed to occur only twice a year instead of every quarter?Īnother asked Mayer to stack rank her own top leadership and fire one or two of them to show she is treating everyone equally: Employees are unaware that they are being rated on a bell curve/stacked ranked model. Can we ban the practice of ‘because said so’ and encourage people to explain why a specific choice was made when relaying those decisions to others?Īt no point was it messaged to people managers or employees that low ratings would impact job status. There was probably a good reason for the decision, but that’s absent from this pat answer. More often than I’d like I’m told we are executing a certain way ‘because Marissa said so.’ This explanation leaves out valuable context. I don’t want to lose the person mentally. I understand we want to weed out mishires/people not meeting their goals, but this practice is concerning. I feel so uncomfortable because in order to meet the bell curve, I have to tell the employee that they missed when I truly don’t believe it to be the case. Now, I have to have a discussion about it when I have my QPR meetings. I was forced to give an employee an occasionally misses, was very uncomfortable with it. In recent days, in fact, the top five questions are all about QPR - each with more than a thousand votes.Īmong the examples - some of which are included in screen shots below - that have been sent to me: On an internal message board for anonymous feedback, the posts voted up in recent days all center on QPR, and there have been many more since then. Most point the finger for the bad rollout of the system at HR head Jackie Reses, who penned the awkward and poorly communicated internal explanation of that controversial plan to bring employees to the office.Īt issue now is the QPR process within Yahoo that Mayer introduced last year and that Reses manages. In fact, dozens of perturbed Yahoos are sending me emails complaining that managers perceive it as required, in missives that are similar in tone to when Mayer suspended work-from-home privileges for Yahoos last year. Mayer denied that the rankings were forced at a staff meeting this week, noting that they were more guidelines or the process was not being deployed correctly.īut some employees disagree that is the case in the anonymous postings. Those fired recently had gotten lower scores at least two times in recent quarters, said multiple sources, as I reported last week. Instead, some inside the company are incensed that the “Quarterly Performance Review” system forces managers to rank some of their staff with designations of “Occasionally Misses” and “Misses,” even if it is not the case, via what is essentially a modified bell curve. Mayer has been aggressively doing that, even adding to overall employee numbers at Yahoo, largely via an incessant series of acquisitions. According to a multitude of top-ranking posts on an anonymous internal message board used by Yahoo to vent their frustrations to top staff, employees there are becoming increasingly upset by an evaluation system instituted by CEO Marissa Mayer that has apparently resulted in the firings of more than 600 people in recent weeks.Ī key point: The fact that some staffers are being let go is not the core issue - many inside agree that the Silicon Valley Internet giant has long needed to prune its employees and upgrade its talent base.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |