4 ms·
If you fire all the 1's, 2's, and 3's, you have to hire people to fill in those positions. And in one year, the whole group gets re-evaluated, including the new
by ssharp 11y ago
If you fire all the 1's, 2's, and 3's, you have to hire people to fill in those positions. And in one year, the whole group gets re-evaluated, including the new hires. I'd think it would take quite a few cycles before the people who were 4's and 5's became 2's and 3's, while maintaining their same levels of productivity.
I think GE was well known for doing a similar practice under Jack Welsch and they still had plenty of long-term employees. I don't think the system is particularly desirable though.
- plonh 11y agoCulling the bottom 10% is great when you measure accurately and you have 15% dead weight. But what about when those conditions are not met?
- kazinator 11y agoLegend has it that Vancouver's billionaire tycoon Jim Pattison ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Pattison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Pattison ... used to have a policy in effect in his car dealerships that the worst producing salesman would be fired every month. For instance, this is remarked upon in this National Post article: http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=fb5f68f1-5946-4b46-8a1b-6428db31d1d7 http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=fb5f68f1-5946-4b46... (search for word "salesman"). I think, no conditions were applied. Worst just meant not as many sales or as much revenue as the second worst salesman.
- sshine 11y agoCan you volunteer as tribute, though?