> ”By reducing the size of our team, fewer conversations will be required to make a decision, and each person will be more load-bearing and have more scope and impact,” Wang writes in a memo seen by Axios.
That's kinda wild. I'm kinda shocked they put it in writing.
then they gave it to Chris Cox, the Midas of shit. It languished in "product" trying to do applied research. The rot had set in by mid 2024 if not earlier.
Then someone convinced Zuck that he needed what ever that new kid is, and the rest is history.
Meta has too many staff, exceptionally poor leadership, and a performance system that rewards bullshitters.
To be fair, almost every company has a performance system that rewards bullshitters. You’re rewarded on your ability to schmooze and talk confidently and write numerous great-sounding docs about all the great things you claim to be doing. This is not unique to one company.
Meta's is uniquely bad.
Basically your superiours all go into a room and argue about who did what, when and how good it was.
If you have a manager who is bad at presenting, then their team is sunk, and will be used to fill quotas. The way out of that is to create workplace posts that are seen by your wider org, that make you look like you're doing something useful. "oh I heard about x, they talked about y, that sounded good"
This means that people who work away and just do good engineering are less likley to be rewarded compared to the #thankstrain twats/"I wrote the post, therefore it was all me me me" types
This alignment meeting is all private, and there are no mechanisms to challenge it. worse still it encourages a patronage system. Your manager has almost complete discretion to fuck up your career, so don't be honest in pulse(the survey/feedback system).