Is it true that every 6 months the bottom 25% of employees are fired? How is this supposed to work long-term? It feels like a waste of time and money with all the training and licensing costs. Even if they hire cheaper people, won’t it hurt customer service or sales because of poor training? I’m genuinely confused about how this is supposed to make sense.
It’s not exactly like that. Last year, they reviewed the bottom 10%, but they also considered previous periods. From what I’ve seen in the last 6 months, it doesn’t look like many people were let go. With the new goals, it seems even harder to get fired.
@Lin
I think it might depend on the department. In mine, one of the goals to get a top rating is impossible. Even our best agents haven’t hit it before. (I don’t want to share too much since I know someone from my department checks this forum.)
Honestly, it’s not sustainable at all, and I think that’s the point.
Ocean said:
Honestly, it’s not sustainable at all, and I think that’s the point.
But wouldn’t that eventually hurt the company? How does that help Buffett and the shareholders?
Ocean said:
Honestly, it’s not sustainable at all, and I think that’s the point.
But wouldn’t that eventually hurt the company? How does that help Buffett and the shareholders?
I think they’re betting big on commercial insurance and using AI.
@Ocean
That makes sense! Maybe I should move to commercial… although, it probably won’t matter in the long run.
Wilder said:
@Ocean
That makes sense! Maybe I should move to commercial… although, it probably won’t matter in the long run.
Honestly, I think AI will make things worse for employees, especially since it’s more of an issue between companies and customers, not internal operations.
@Ocean
I agree. That’s why I said it probably doesn’t matter lol.
@Ocean
AI is going to flop in insurance, especially with states like New York and California restricting how it’s used for decisions.