Microsoft Implements Stricter Performance Management System With Two-Year Rehire Ban (businessinsider.com)
- Reference: 0177080055
- News link: https://slashdot.org/story/25/04/22/018236/microsoft-implements-stricter-performance-management-system-with-two-year-rehire-ban
- Source link: https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-email-details-new-policies-cull-low-performers-2025-4
The policy establishes a two-year rehire blackout period for employees who leave with low performance ratings (zero to 60% in Microsoft's 0-200 scale) or during a PIP process. These employees are also barred from internal transfers while still at the company.
Coming months after Microsoft terminated 2,000 underperformers without severance, the company is also developing AI-supported tools to help managers "prepare for constructive or challenging conversations" through interactive practice environments. "Our focus remains on enabling high performance to achieve our priorities spanning security, quality, and leading AI," Coleman wrote, emphasizing that these changes aim to create "a globally consistent and transparent experience" while fostering "accountability and growth."
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-email-details-new-policies-cull-low-performers-2025-4
Delete your data (Score:2)
Hit them with a data request and data deletion demand after leaving Microsoft, which also spells out that they must delete your employment data.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not "your" data, it's data about you.
There is a world of difference between the two.
Re: (Score:1)
> It's not "your" data, it's data about you.
> There is a world of difference between the two.
I bet the EU has some obscure law or regulation or EU Court finding that would say uou are wrong.
FYI - I do not live in the EU.
Re: Delete your data (Score:3)
This kind of data is excempt from data deletion requests and is a valid use even under gdpr. It has been written not to be abused in valid cases
Two-Year Rehire Ban (Score:5, Interesting)
The company (large defense contractor) that I used to work for had a policy that people rehired within two years retained (at least) their previous seniority and benefits levels, like vacation accrual rate. Perhaps MS has something similar and this is a way to circumvent that -- other than changing the rules, which probably wouldn't go over well. Just guessing though...
Re: (Score:3)
It's more likely a way to exclude a large portion of applicants so they can continue to justify their H-1B acquisitions, in spite of the pretty significant unemployment in the field.
Re: Two-Year Rehire Ban (Score:2)
Exactly. Microsoft is a notoriously bad place to work ever since GE stack ranking. They don't care though since if US people don't want to work for them, they save money by hiring H1B1s.
Re: Two-Year Rehire Ban (Score:5, Informative)
> Exactly. Microsoft is a notoriously bad place to work ever since GE stack ranking. They don't care though since if US people don't want to work for them, they save money by hiring H1B1s.
That's pretty unlikely, I think. I know several people who are/were managers at Microsoft, and managed both H-1B employees and employees in other statuses (L-1, O-1, green card, citizen, etc.) and they all say that there are no significant pay differences between H-1Bs and the other statuses. That matches my own experience as a manager at Google. I think big corporations would have a hard time getting away with paying differently based on visa status... too much probability of being sued.
No, if big American corporations want to get away with paying less for H-1B labor, they can't hire them as employees. They have to hire them as contractors, and do it through contracting agencies. Those agencies don't have the unequal-pay problem because all of their employees are paid less. The big corps have to be careful not to treat them like regular employees in several ways, though, and they don't get the full savings, since the contracting agency takes a pretty big cut.
In practice, I think big tech companies tend only to use the cheap H-1Bs for lower tiers of employees. The H-1Bs who are really good are worth paying full price for, and it's better not to have to limit what they can work on. If you happen to find a cheap H-1B contractor who's really good, the best thing to do is to hire them as an FTE (taking care with all the contract terms, etc.). It'll cost a lot more, since as an FTE their pay will have to be competitive with the green card holders, citizens, etc., but it's worth it because you can get a lot more out of them.
But the article at hand is about low-performing FTEs, and MS might very well like to replace them with cheap H-1B contractors. They probably won't get much better output out of the cheap H-1Bs, but it'll cost less, so it's a win. But they're not going to try to replace good FTEs with cheap H-1Bs... that would be counterproductive.
If company puts you in wrong job, don't redeploy (Score:1)
I had a great career with a major company. Hired from school and put in first job that didn't fit. The company figured out that I was in the wrong job and gave me alternatives. The next job was a perfect fit. Had many great gigs there over the years as the technology and business changed.
Under Microsoft's new policy, if the company hires you and happens to put you in the wrong job, you cannot get a transfer to another job that suits your abilities - and cannot return for two years.
They are going to churn th
Re: (Score:2)
> if the company hires you and happens to put you in the wrong job, you cannot get a transfer
That part has always been that way. Don't want an employee who wants to transfer to leave your team? Give a bad review then they can't leave.
Re:If company puts you in wrong job, don't redeplo (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure they can. They can leave to go work for the competition....perhaps one with less shitty managers than ones who give good employees bad reviews.
I'm guessing its depressing (Score:2)
It seems like it should give some people cause for concern about the quality of their employee evaluations, candidate evaluations, or both; if they need to have a formalized "don't hire people you've recently fired" policy.
That seems like the sort of outcome that would, on the whole, emerge naturally unless your organization is blithely twitching in response to terribly poor quality data.
10 YEAR BAN NOW IN EFFECT (Score:2)
Neither I, any companies I control, nor any I consult with will hire ANY Microsoft employees manager level and above within 10 years of being employed by microsoft.
You want to fire the plebes and not rehire them. That's your right. YOU HAVE NOWHERE TO GO in my sphere.
I CALL ON ALL HIRING MANAGERS TO MATCH THIS. SAY OUT LOUD: We will not hire any Microsoft manager level or higher within ten years of their leaving Microsoft.
E
P.S. As to all things there are exceptions. If someone was fired not due to cause
Good thing we have ai to help us work less (Score:2)
So we can enjoy free time more and have a better health without burnout. Haha, what kind of silly head would think that ai would be only used to control whether we work even more than before ai
If it's 0 to 60 percent... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does the particular point range matter, regardless of whether it runs 0-200 or 513-90210?
Re: (Score:2)
Because 60% isn’t exactly representable on the 513-90210 scale.
Re: (Score:2)
The motto used to be we're the humans, and in control.
Now the robots are in control, the AI a new taskmaster, evaluator, and the non-human element.
This won't end well.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how long it'll be before the CEOs decide they don't need to pay a middle manager to review the AI's evaluations?
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck to them running a company where nobody is around to load more computers into racks to feed the ever-hungry AI monster we have created.
Re: (Score:2)
I knew Red Stapler Guy from Office Space was modeled on a real person. Won't be long before they fix the glitch that keeps your paycheck going.
Re:If it's 0 to 60 percent... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm a manager at Microsoft and I can clear this up a bit, because it sounds totally random.
Your performance review determines your 'rewards', which is your 'merit increase' (salary), bonus, and stock award. Let's say you make $200k a year, and your maximum bonus range is up to 20%. Your target/expected bonus is half of that, so 10%. If you get a "100", this is really "100%" of your expected bonus, so you get 10% of $200k, or $20k bonus. If you have a great performance year and your boss gives you a 140, then you get 140% of your expected bonus range. This means that your top bonus percentage is "200%" of your expected bonus, aka your max bonus. I think this is purely for psychological reasons - people hear that they got a 100% and think that's awesome, vs hearing they got a 50% and being disappointed.
The other thing is that you can't give someone a bonus of 107 or something. It's only in 20-point increments and there are certain ones that (at least in my experience) aren't available, so the options are: 0 [you're being managed out], 60 [you're being given a stern warning], 80 [slightly underperforming, but not a big deal], 100 [expected - this is probably 50% of all employees], 120 [overperformed], 140 [wowowow], 160, 180, 200. The higher numbers are reserved for exceptional circumstances OR lower level employees who are early in career, so giving them a 40% larger bonus isn't that expensive for the company.
There's also quite a lot of wiggle room on the final merit/bonus/stock calculation, where your manager might give you a 120 - but then the overall studio or group or org or the whole company get slightly adjusted along the way. If you're in Azure, you might get a larger bonus all other things being equal over someone working on HoloLens or Xbox.