I was listening with 1 ear due to a lot of work (Tue this week), but remember this:
- 1st part with both AS and DS participating: all is great, growth is good, future looks awesome, we will fire some more people in some areas, but give them opportunity to relocate or switch role, DS kind of reserved, AS super excited.
- 2nd part with not-so-excited-anymore AS, some other guy and DS gone: forced ranking is here to stay, it's not only what you do and deliver that is important, but HOW you do it too, perhaps we will change the "underperforming" rating name to something else. AS said this kind of rating system is being used by most of the biggest companies - this is totally not true. None of them use it anymore or never did and it says a lot about those people's true intentions.
She also made a reference to something I don't remember (growth? investing? transformation? change?) using comparison she always liked, of slowly heating the water up with a frog in it. I did not get it. Frog does not escape using this "strategy", but does she know it eventually dies in the end?
I've read all of the the questions on the chat carefully tough, 95% of them related to: forced ranking used against regular staff but not against execs, bell curve removal requests, low salaries, more work no extra pay, many people leaving DA, no Glint survey results shared, high workloads, no work-life balance, 12-14h long working days, disappointing HR processes, zero pay ranges or bonus transparency, more silos, biased managers using forced ranking against their staff. Then 1 or 2 questions about improving diversity or inclusiveness.
I expect some standard "why don't you leave" replies, but any other thoughts?