> Microsoft likely had no policy that required him to work this much

They do have these policies written down: bi-annual performance reviews, stack ranking, PIPs.

You're implying that he was under performing, and therefore felt the pressure to avoid a bad review and the resulting PIP.

We don't have enough information to support that.

Bi-annual performance reviews themselves aren't a bad thing that force overwork.

If he had a history of good performance reviews (100% or higher on average), the risk of getting a PIP would be very low.

Microsoft stopped stack ranking years ago.

I don't think we should speculate on people's behavior or how they aligned with company policies, because we might accidentally be insulting this man.

▲

11324msthrow 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

This comment is off-base enough that I've created a throwaway, as I post openly as a Microsoftie on my main, to prevent anyone else from getting the wrong idea.

Microsoft reintroduced stack ranking over the last year or so. It's widely documented.

The individual in question was definitely under pressure. I worked rather closely with them, and this is well documented in the source article as well.

I don't think any of the things I said above (or were insinuated about Microsoft culture by other posters) are in any way insulting to Prateek, regardless of what his individual situation or performance is. If anything, calling attention to it and attempting to address it is a powerful way to show respect to my eyes. The incentive systems at play, the pressures and stressors, will result in these outcomes unless anyone forces a change. End of story.

▲

PretzelPirate 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Microsoft reintroduced stack ranking over the last year or so

Microsoft has forced differentiation, not stack ranking. They aren't the same and differentiation is much better for employees.

> The individual in question was definitely under pressure. I worked rather closely with them, and this is well documented in the source article as well

I'm sure you're feeling a lot of options due to your proximity, and I'm sorry for what you're going through.

The article says he was under pressure, but it didn't say the source of that pressure. Perhaps it was due to a series of "lower than expected" reviews, or the constant worry about losing their job and their visa. It didn't say that the pressure was caused by internal policies.

I've known many people who put pressure on themselves and burnt out because of it, despite no one expected them to do so. I suffered through that in my own career and nearly quit software engineering because of it.

If you have real details about the situation and that it was internal Microsoft policy or the pressure put in them by their manager which may not have aligned with Microsoft policy, that woukd be very useful information to share with the public.

Microsoft operates like many big companies vs a single company, and some teams go beyond standard Microsoft policy and have unrealistic expectations of their employees. Those departments and managers should be called out and shamed.

	▲	11324msthrow 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> Microsoft has forced differentiation, not stack ranking. They aren't the same and differentiation is much better for employees. In practice it is exactly the same. EMs are instructed that they must have someone at for instance 80 (below-meets-expectations), or occasionally at 60 (PIP). This has resulted in layoffs. The pseudonyms we're told to use are infantilizing when we can see the results. > I'm sure you're feeling a lot of options due to your proximity I'd ask you not make assumptions about my feelings in this, vs taking the statements I'm making at face value. Not that it's unique to his division, I can assure you I worked organizationally close enough to know that, regardless of other sources of stress, there is(was) relevant work pressure up through the VP level encouraging late hours and long days that goes well beyond healthy, often acknowledged outright as the way to stand out in leadership AMAs. The evidence of this is documented in the article, and your dissembling is somewhat astonishing. > If you have real details about the situation and that it was internal Microsoft policy or the pressure put in them by their manager which may not have aligned with Microsoft policy, that woukd be very useful information to share with the public. I'm sharing it, you're just disregarding it. There is a system in place that through basic game theory ensures a prisoner's dilemma without compromise, with the escalation being longer hours and more work. While any given leadership may encourage it more or less, to not see how that pans out naturally when employment is on the line, especially as proven out by multiple recent rounds of 'performance' driven layoffs, seems purposefully obtuse. One doesn't know when the heart attack is coming, but one does know when the PIP is coming; we can't be surprised at the choices people will make.

▲

firesteelrain 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I didn’t take his comment that way of which GP replied to me. I took it as sarcasm. In that, GP was saying it like “Yea but they found time to make these policies…”

That’s how I read it