3 ms·
I thought most companies have figured out Jack Welch's rank-and-yank system doesn't work by now? Surely Amazon isn't that naive are they?
by auiya 8y ago
I thought most companies have figured out Jack Welch's rank-and-yank system doesn't work by now? Surely Amazon isn't that naive are they?
- czbond 8y agoSo I think it depends on the organization. I have tended to work in more aggressive, competitive fields. Different versions of "rank and yank" (as you call it) or "up or out" or other types. BigCorps need to do it to keep the average talent bar from trending down (A-Players hire A-Players; B-Player hire C-Players). Startups need to do it generally because the pool of applicants tends to be either "great", "good" or "can't get a job elsewhere" and it needs to weed out. I believe it forces people to improve themselves and their game.
- rightbyte 8y agoThis doesn't make sense. "A-Players hire A-Players; B-Player hire C-Players" If B:s hires C:s than in analogue A:s would hire B:s since it's a bell curve-ish distribution not digital buckets. Who hires the A:s? A, B and C:s by accident? "I believe it forces people to improve themselves and their game." You probably want people to improve their skills in their craft, not players to improve their skills in the a management game.
- johan_larson 8y agoMy impression is that stack ranking with forced attrition can, if applied for a short period, shake a sleepy low-performing organization out of its lethargy. But if you try to run things that way long-term you get problems. People stop thinking of the team and start acting too selfishly.