In recent discussions, a former Meta employee described a turbulent period during a wave of layoffs at the American tech giant. The individual, who had joined the company and later left, claimed that after onboarding there was no concrete job duty assigned, and that she did not end up performing work in a traditional sense. The narrative was reported by Business Insider and echoed by others who observed how staffing decisions can influence how roles are perceived within large organizations.
According to the former employee, she was placed into a group that lacked clearly defined responsibilities from the start. She recounted that taking on meaningful tasks required a struggle, and that the initial assignment gave little sense of direction. The sense of misalignment appeared to be part of a broader pattern she observed among peers who found themselves in similarly ambiguous positions during the hiring phase.
She suggested that Meta had brought in people to work on Facebook-related projects, along with initiatives related to the metaverse, in what she described as a strategic move to limit recruitment by competitors. The analogy she used was striking: she felt that employees were being circulated and stacked into roles much as collectors arrange items, rather than being matched to a specific, impactful project. Her observations painted a picture of a workplace where job duties were not clearly defined and where some roles did not lead to concrete outcomes, at least in the short term.
After nearly seven months with the company, the employee was dismissed. She noted that there was no confidentiality agreement she could point to that restricted what she could discuss publicly about her experience, which contributed to her willingness to share her perspective. The broader takeaway, she said, was a sense that certain talented people were being deterred from advancing within their careers because of the way responsibilities were distributed or perceived within the organization.
She emphasized that several highly capable colleagues had turned down what others might consider attractive opportunities, yet believed that Meta was hindering their career trajectories by design. The claim suggested that some individuals were effectively labeled as working without meaningful output, even when opportunities existed to contribute in significant ways. In her view, there were indications of impending workloads that she believed would require substantial effort in the near future, a pattern she described as either proactive preparation or an amassing of tasks that could later demand attention.
According to her account, the company did not seat employees reliably in office spaces and paid limited attention to routine operational details. She recalled moments when taking a day off felt inconsequential, as if there were no formal tracking of such absences. Her narrative included examples of people who had joined the company but did not engage in productive work, raising questions about the alignment between recruitment goals and actual project needs, at least at that juncture.
In parallel commentary, a noted tech investor, Keith Rabois, offered his own calculations about hiring practices across large technology firms. He asserted that thousands of workers at major companies, including Meta and Google, might be performing what he described as nonproductive or “fake” work, and that many hires were not directly connected to the advancement of core business initiatives. His statements added to the ongoing conversation about how talent is allocated within the tech sector and how employment narratives are shaped by leadership decisions and market pressures. In his view, the perception of value in some roles could diverge from the reality of their contribution to strategic outcomes.