Internal MS email to managers details new policies to cull low performers

Reminds me of one of my favourite scenes from Snow Crash

QUOTE

Y.T.’s mom pulls up the new memo, checks the time, and starts reading it. The estimated reading time is 15.62 minutes. Later, when Marietta [her boss] does her end-of-day statistical roundup, sitting in her private office at 9:00 P.M., she will see the name of each employee and next to it, the amount of time spent reading this memo, and her reaction, based on the time spent, will go something like this:

• Less than 10 min.: Time for an employee conference and possible attitude counseling.

• 10-14 min.: Keep an eye on this employee; may be developing slipshod attitude.

• 14-15.61 min.: Employee is an efficient worker, may sometimes miss important details.

• Exactly 15.62 min.: Smartass. Needs attitude counseling.

• 15.63-16 min.: Asswipe. Not to be trusted.

• 16-18 min.: Employee is a methodical worker, may sometimes get hung up on minor details.

• More than 18 min.: Check the security videotape, see just what this employee was up to (e.g., possible unauthorized restroom break).

Y.T.’s mom decides to spend between fourteen and fifteen minutes reading the memo. It’s better for younger workers to spend too long, to show that they’re careful, not cocky. It’s better for older workers to go a little fast, to show good management potential. She’s pushing forty. She scans through the memo, hitting the Page Down button at reasonably regular intervals, occasionally paging back up to pretend to reread some earlier section. The computer is going to notice all this. It approves of rereading. It’s a small thing, but over a decade or so this stuff really shows up on your work-habits summary.

We all should keep in mind that performance isn't just a function of the individual employee, but also how well they mesh with the environment they work at.

The same person can perform badly in one team or company, and be exceptional in another.

Do people learn to be this way at business school?

Even the military, where there are actually life-or-death stakes, isn’t this cutthroat about talent management.

Either this is written by AI or someone with a similar level of empathy. This said, there's little to be known about the methods they use to assess people, but if it follows the trend, it definitely isn't close to being fair, honest, transparent or even human-like. Even more so when it comes to helping managers by using an AI conversation tool to simulate scenarios. It is another corpo BS that is polished to look like they care about people (with respect to the local laws). But otherwise I'm pretty sure this won't help make MS some sort of high performing company.

> You'll have access to scenario-based, AI-supported tools designed to help you prepare for constructive or challenging conversations by practicing in an interactive environment.

This just sounds really ominious to me. It's like they're training empathy out of their management team by letting them practice on an AI that begs for it's life just like a real human.....

I would like to ask some questions to the author, at the risk of addressing a robot.

- What kind of value do humans have?

- Do people with slower (cognitive) processing have a right to exist?

- Should we get rid of people with disabilities?

I got chills from reading this letter. It sends the message people are just human resources.

If someone is not performing that well, can you help them? provide training? If someone does not meet the bar of widget per minute, even after lots of trying, but is a fine team mate who finds their happiness doing their best they can, aren't you happy to help someone with a stable income and a meaningful job in society? Wouldn't that be a great company? Wouldn't make that YOU a real human?

Paywall