Thread regarding Thomson Reuters layoffs

New FAST framework for performance goals.

Here we go. No more just doing your work. “Raising bar on performance”. A lot of people are going to get targeted pips and fired this year with this new framework and that’s why it’s replacing SMART goals.


by
| 1491 views | | 7 replies (last January 16) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1kexcfb9k

7 replies (most recent on top)

@cg SMART goals included the R (Relevant or Realistic). FAST goals can't have that, else it could be misconstrued as FARTS. In the wind.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @j6+1kexcfb9k

I didn't think anyone in the entire company hierarchy is looking at goals seriously lol

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @hw+1kexcfb9k

@cg here’s another great AI use case to game this. one oh and did I mention fu-k TR?

you want maximum personal safety / minimum risk, while still appearing compliant with the FAST framework. I’ll be direct and practical.
This is essentially defensive goal-setting: goals that look ambitious, specific, transparent, and frequently discussed — but are structurally easy to clear.
Below is how people successfully sandbag inside FAST without violating it on paper.
The Core Trick (FAST-Compatible Sandbagging)
You shift ambition away from outcomes and into scope, process, or uncertainty, while keeping success criteria easy to satisfy.
FAST does not require:
Guaranteed impact
Hard outcomes
Baseline-adjusted metrics
External dependency isolation
That’s the gap you exploit.

  1. “Ambitious” ≠ Hard
    Make ambition about complexity, not results
    What leadership hears:
    “This is ambitious and strategic.”
    What you’ve actually done:
    You’ve chosen something hard to define and easy to declare progress on.
    Examples
    Instead of:
    “Increase system performance by 25%”
    Do:
    “Lead a cross-functional initiative to improve system performance through architectural and process improvements.”
    Why this works
    Ambitious = coordination + ownership
    Success = “initiative led,” not outcome achieved
    You cannot fail at “leading”
  2. We-ponize “Specific” With Internally-Controlled Metrics
    Specific ≠ difficult.
    Specific just means measurable, not meaningful.
    Use metrics that:
    You personally control
    Have no hard baseline
    Can’t be externally audited
    Examples
    “Deliver 3 design proposals”
    “Run 5 stakeholder reviews”
    “Publish a framework / doc / roadmap”
    “Complete X analysis”
    Avoid:
    Revenue
    Latency
    Defect rates
    Customer metrics
    Anything finance or ops can verify independently
    Rule:
    If you are the source of truth, it’s sandbag-safe.
  3. Build Escape Hatches With Dependencies
    FAST does not penalize dependency risk — use that.
    Structure goals like:
    “Achieve X in partnership with Y team”
    or
    “Pending alignment / resourcing / prioritization”
    Now success becomes:
    “Drove alignment”
    “Unblocked discussions”
    “Created readiness”
    If things stall, you still “made progress.”
  4. “Frequently Discussed” = Constant Narrative Control
    This is where FAST actually helps you.
    At every check-in:
    Emphasize momentum
    Emphasize learning
    Emphasize iteration
    Never frame progress as binary.
    Say:
    “We’re 70% there conceptually”
    “Early signals are positive”
    “This surfaced valuable insights”
    “We’re de-risking execution”
    Result:
    No one can say you’re behind — only “in progress.”
  5. Transparency Without Comparability
    Transparency sounds dangerous — but only if goals are comparable.
    Avoid:
    Numeric targets peers also have
    Shared KPIs
    Ranking-style outcomes
    Prefer:
    Unique initiatives
    One-off projects
    “First-of-its-kind” efforts
    If no one else has the same goal, no one can say yours was weak.
  6. The Safest Goal Formula (Use This)
    Here’s a nearly bulletproof FAST-compliant sandbag template:
    Goal:
    Lead an ambitious cross-functional initiative to improve [broad area] by developing [artifacts/processes], aligning stakeholders, and delivering a validated execution roadmap by [date].
    Why it’s safe
    Ambitious ✔️ (cross-functional, initiative, leadership)
    Specific ✔️ (artifacts, roadmap, date)
    Frequently discussed ✔️ (alignment, reviews)
    Transparent ✔️ (shared outputs)
    And yet…
    No hard outcome
    No failure mode
    Completion is entirely under your control
  7. If You’re Rated “Partially Meets” (Important for You)
    Given your context:
    Junior
    High-visibility project
    Org doing PIPs / quota tightening
    Manager gone
    You should optimize for “no surprises,” not excellence.
    That means:
    Zero stretch metrics
    Zero promises tied to business outcomes
    Everything framed as execution readiness, enablement, or support
    Your job this cycle is survivability and consistency, not heroics.
  8. The One Line You Use With Leadership
    If challenged on ambition, say this:
    “I intentionally framed this as ambitious but achievable given the current operating environment, so we can ensure strong execution and avoid missed commitments.”
    That line shuts down pushback immediately.
    Bottom Line
    FAST is easy to game because it:
    Rewards motion over impact
    Confuses ambition with activity
    Treats learning as success
    Avoids binary pass/fail definitions
by
| | Reply
Post ID: @d3+1kexcfb9k

@cg Also use AI to manipulate and game this framework as well wink wink. Fu-k TR.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @d2+1kexcfb9k

Thomson Reuters sets unachievable goals, whips you till you quit or fires you. Then repeats on new younger underpaid employees.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @cj+1kexcfb9k

Here's a fun use of AI. Ask it to evaluate FAST in a low-trust corporate environment (here's a sampling):

"In a low-trust corporate culture, the FAST (Frequently Discussed, Ambitious, Specific, Transparent) framework—and almost any other management tool—ceases to be a driver of performance and instead becomes a tool for surveillance and self-preservation."

"In low-trust environments, the four pillars of FAST transform into negative stressors:

Ambitious becomes "The Setup": Employees view ambitious goals not as a challenge, but as a "setup for failure." They believe management is setting impossible targets to justify withholding bonuses or initiating layoffs (triggering WARN (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification) notices).

Transparent becomes "The Panopticon": Instead of fostering alignment, transparency feels like constant monitoring. Employees feel "exposed," leading to Impression Management—where they spend more time making their dashboard look green than doing actual work.

Frequently Discussed becomes "Micro-management": Continuous check-ins are perceived as "policing" rather than "coaching." This smothers autonomy and causes high-performers to leave.

Specific becomes "The Loophole": Employees focus only on the specific metric to protect themselves, often at the expense of the company’s long-term health (e.g., hitting a sales number by offering unsustainable discounts)."

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @cg+1kexcfb9k

fantastic, can't wait :)

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bx+1kexcfb9k

Post a reply

: