• Stefan Mai, a former manager at Meta and Amazon, said low-performer quotas can lead to awkward moments in reviews.
• On "The Peterman Pod," he said assigning low-performer status after praising performance was what managers "are afraid of."
• "For everyone involved, most of which the actual person who's receiving that news, it can be devastating," Mai said.

Low-performer quotas can lead to some "mea culpa" moments for managers — especially if a manager has been telling their team they're all aces, says startup founder Stefan Mai.

Mai, who cofounded Hello Interview, previously worked as a senior engineering manager at Meta and a software development manager at Amazon. Both workplaces have instructed managers to be stricter in how they review employees, which has sometimes led to cuts for "low performers" or placements on performance improvement plans.

Low-performer quotas typically require managers to label a certain percentage of their teams as underperformers. The quotas can be a way for a company to push managers to expect excellence across their teams, hold stragglers accountable, and deliver the kind of critical feedback that some managers may have avoided messaging.

Those quotas can also lead to a whole lot of heartache when a manager feels their team is performing at its best, Mai said on "The Peterman Pod."

Mai described a hypothetical "worst scenario" for a manager: They've spent the lead-up to the review cycle praising their team's hard work, only to get an instruction from their director that "somebody's got to be in that low bucket."

"Now you've to go change your tack," Mai said. "Those sort of like egg-on-the-face moments are what most managers are afraid of, and they try their damnedest to try to prevent those situations."

A company tightening its performance-review process can also be a precursor to job cuts.

Three years after Mai left Meta in 2022, the company laid off 3,600 employees, or about 5% of its workforce. Many of these employees were labeled "low performers" — a title that trailed some of them after their exit. Months after the layoffs, an internal memo at Meta pushed managers to put more employees in the "below expectations" tier. For teams of 150 or more, Meta wanted managers to put 15% to 20% of employees in the bottom bucket.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg told employees he had "decided to raise the bar on performance management" and to "move out low-performers" more quickly.

Microsoft recently employed a new strategy to handle those it viewed as poor performers, per an internal email to managers: pay them to leave.

Amazon spokesperson Sam Stephenson wrote that the tech giant, "like most companies," has a performance management process that "helps our managers identify who in their teams are performing well and who needs more support."

"The vast majority of our colleagues regularly meet or exceed expectations, but for the small number of employees who don't, we provide coaching and opportunities to help them improve," Stephenson wrote. "If they're unable to do that, then we may have to discuss them leaving the company."

To Mai, a good manager should be able to "message it appropriately" when employees are labeled low-performers.

"That way they're not surprised, you're not surprised," Mai said. "The structure works fairly."

Managers don't always have that level of foresight — and others are simply new to the job or "immature," as Mai put it. That's where the real pain occurs.

"People have to go 'mea culpa' with their reports," Mai said. "For everyone involved, most of which the actual person who's receiving that news, it can be devastating. It's pretty bad."

Are you a manager who navigated a low-performer quota? Contact the reporter from a non-work email and device at [email protected]

• Zombie funds are on the rise as private equity dealmaking and distributions slow.
• We asked recruiters about the reputational impact of working at a zombie fund.
• They suggested looking for an exit, especially if you're an investor or fundraiser.

Have you heard the news? A new contagion is turning formerly healthy private equity firms into the walking dead. It's not fungal, like in "The Last of Us," a virus, like in "28 Days Later," nor a magical reanimation like the original Haitian Vodou Zombis.

Instead, it's the result of a dealmaking slump, pickier investors, and macroeconomic conditions that have turned some private-equity firms into glorified estate sales, auctioning off their dusty holdings before closing up shop.

There are many definitions of a zombie fund — but no matter how you slice it, it can be bad for your career.

To some, a zombie fund is one that's passed its investment deadline, but is still holding onto capital to invest. Others say it's a firm that can't raise new money and is stuck managing and selling off its current portfolio. Zombie fund can also refer to a fund that has invested capital but is delaying the process of returning money to investors while it continues to collect management fees.

The phrase has picked up steam amid a multiyear lag in M&A and IPOs that has slowed private equity dealmaking and distributions to investors.

Private markets data firm PitchBook said the number of US funds that haven't made an investment in a year, despite raising money in the last six years, is up 50% from 2021 to June 2025, to 651. Internationally, they're up 40% in the same period to 1203.

We spoke to recruiters about the rise of the zombie funds and what that means for people working for them. Here is what they said.

When to run

Recruiters said employees, especially in certain roles, should start job-hunting at the first sign of zombification, though they warned that not every slowdown signals trouble.

"If they are working at a firm that has no plans to fundraise for the foreseeable future, that is usually their sign to go straight to exploring the market," Jessica Xu, head of investor relations recruiting at Selby Jennings, told Business Insider.

This is especially true for people in fundraising roles, where success means growing the firm's assets under management and building strong and deep relationships with investors.

Bill Matthews, partner at BraddockMatthewsBarrett, said it's also true for people in investment roles because a zombie fund will drag down your investment track record.

"Folks have to pick their head up and move," he said, adding, "On the investment side, you want to have a track record of doing deals and exiting deals, and if there's a zombie fund, that's not going to be the case."

Of course, fundraising has slowed across the board and isn't necessarily a death knell. It's important to differentiate between a slowdown due to market conditions and one caused by dissatisfied investors. Just make sure you're keeping busy during the slowdown, said Lisa Steele, a partner at BraddockMatthewsBarrett.

"You're maintaining relationships and keeping current LPs up to date, which is also critically important to these long-term partnerships," she said, referring to limited partners, the industry's catchphrase for fund investors.

You should also be developing new relationships, which Steele said will prove "hugely valuable when you go back to market."

How to interview

A candidate running from a zombie fund may feel tempted to hide their current situation in a bid to make the candidacy more enticing. That would be a mistake, recruiters said.

Matthews said hiring firms tend to know which of their peers are zombie funds from conversations with investors and other intermediaries.

"It's important for candidates to be as transparent as possible with potential employers about their reasons for wanting to leave their current firm, and working at a zombie fund is an understandable reason," Xu said.

The trick is to do it smartly. Recruiters warned against badmouthing the current employer or divulging confidential performance information. Focusing on personal gain is key, they said.

"Many candidates in these situations feel constrained in their ability to drive growth and create meaningful value for their investors," said Xu, adding that they are "seeking environments where they can contribute more strategically."

By focusing on how you'd benefit from moving to a better-performing fund, you come across as a good player on a bad team. And it's worth remembering that there are worse situations to be in.

"A hiring firm's biggest fear is unknowingly hiring another firm's castoff," Matthews said. "A zombie fund situation is obviously a good and valid reason why someone would want to leave."

• Alvaro Munevar Jr. leveraged middle management jobs to help him retire early from his tech career.
• Now, Big Tech companies are culling middle managers, a reduction that Munevar Jr. said makes sense.
• He said he witnessed how middle managers allowed fiefdoms to thrive and slowed down productivity.

I spent nearly all of my 30-year tech career in middle management. I managed teams that built and delivered web and mobile business applications.

I intentionally stayed in the middle management bracket, where I was paid well and typically worked 40 to 45 hours most weeks. This meant I had enough time to build a real-estate side business. Doing that helped me achieve my goal of early retirement.

In 2024, I left my corporate job and live off my real-estate passive income.

My retirement at 59 came as the wider tech industry began eliminating many middle management positions.

Big Tech companies like Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, and Google have been trying to flatten their company structure by removing managers. Google's CEO, Sundar Pichai, has said this is to increase efficiency, while Amazon's Andy Jassy, who has said he wants the company to run like the "world's largest startup," has suggested that removing management layers can cut bureaucracy.

Although I really enjoyed working and learning as a middle manager, I did occasionally question the value I was bringing at that level.

I worked in startups and bigger companies alike

Beginning in the late 1990s, I worked in both engineering and middle management roles for a few small startup companies.

These startups maintained a flat management structure where the CEO worked directly with individual contributors to quickly make key decisions and deliver software products. There were few middle managers, and little bureaucracy. This leaner model meant we had fewer scheduled meetings and fewer roadblocks to building out products.

In the startups I worked for, everyone was focused on rapidly solving problems to reach the objective. Your job and future stock awards were based on the team's ability to focus and deliver quickly. Teams could make and execute plans more rapidly without the bureaucracy of a middle management layer — the reviews and approvals that middle managers tend to oversee in larger companies often only slow things down.

When I worked in tech roles at larger companies, my role often involved monitoring progress and confirming that software development teams were meeting the project timelines. I was responsible for explaining the delays to senior management and recommending improvements to avoid future hold-ups.

I spent significant time relaying status updates to the leaders above me and directives to the individual contributors below me. From working at startups, I knew that this back and forth could be reduced in a leaner management environment.

While working at larger companies, I also noticed that fiefdoms began to thrive due to the large number of middle managers.

Fiefdoms, a well-known phenomenon in tech, are essentially siloed groups of workers who are closely controlled by middle managers. These managers oversee what information about the group they share with the rest of the company.

I noticed that fiefdoms often benefited managers. By overseeing a larger head count, they had a greater perceived value. However, it unfortunately ended up isolating teams and departments from one another, leading to duplicated efforts across the company due to limited communication between groups.

On several occasions, my team and I would spend months building out a new software solution only to learn upon presenting our work that another manager's silo of engineers had already built out a similar one.

This is a management fiefdom scenario at its worst, and it negatively impacted morale. My team members were furious that their efforts had been wasted because of the lack of communication.

I'm not sad to see middle managers go

I built my tech career in middle management, so it may seem odd that I recommend removing the very role I once performed.

But after working in tech for over 30 years, I've witnessed significant wasted effort, duplicated results, and territorial management practices in the traditional, heavier middle management model.

There may be disruption and some confusion until the new model has fully worked itself out, but I expect that flattening companies will ultimately create leaner, better working environments.

Do you have a story to share about middle management in tech? Contact the editor, Charissa Cheong, at [email protected]