5 ms·
Do they set a "quota" for 2%? Or is it that they do it every year, and 2% is about the number that falls out? I do agree that a "firing quota" is backwards; it
by tbabb 9y ago
Do they set a "quota" for 2%? Or is it that they do it every year, and 2% is about the number that falls out?
I do agree that a "firing quota" is backwards; it should be a standard of performance. But even in a healthy, high-performing company, 1 (or maybe 2) out of 100 people being a drag/net-negative contributor doesn't sound far too off. Ultimately I think it helps the other 98 people to ask those two to leave as soon as it's clear they're not going to become a net positive. If that assessment comes at a specific time of year, so be it; if it's "Okay, we have /n/ heads to chop off, where are they coming from??"... then yeah, not so much.
- dunkelheit 9y agoThe problem is that a true company-wide firing of bottom 2% of performers is impossible - you would have to somehow compare and rank people with vastly different roles to pull it off. So the way to do it is to first choose unlucky departments and set a quota for each department, then choose unlucky managers and let those managers choose unlucky employees. Which makes it a lot more similar to a layoff than the company likes to admit. These employees may be perfectly solid workers but now they have to bear a stigma of being fired for "performance" reasons. I had a manager friend whose company went through a "not-layoff" when approx. 2% of the workforce were let go. His group was among the unfortunate ones so he was told to choose one victim among his subordinates - but there was no one with unsatisfactory performance in his opinion. Still he had to choose. Didn't improve his morale that much - he quit shortly afterwards.
- syshum 9y agoI was actually in a similar spot once... I choose to fire myself... The company is out of business now, mainly due to poor and unethical management
- sitkack 9y agoThank you.
- wisty 9y agoI know something similar often happens in the public service. Public service managers quickly learn to always hire a few useless people who they don't really need, just in case they need to make cutbacks.
- bboreham 9y agoHiring people becomes a no-lose gamble: if they're good, great; if less good, solves a problem at year-end.
- Frqy3 9y agoWith unlucky departments almost always being cost centres rather than revenue centres.