3 ms·
That only applies if the bad employees are uniformly distributed amongst all teams in the company. Otherwise it makes more sense to chop the worst 10% teams.
by NhanH 5y ago
That only applies if the bad employees are uniformly distributed amongst all teams in the company. Otherwise it makes more sense to chop the worst 10% teams.
- rdtwo 5y agoThat actually makes way more sense. Cutting teams that don’t perform and reforming makes lots of sense
- mjr00 5y agoAt Amazon, the target was between 4 to 6% when I was there, but it was applied at the larger department level, not individual teams. It was perfectly fine to have a team of 10 where nobody was on a PIP (yes, such things exist!), but when it came to my entire 250-person department, all of the managers were in a room together ranking every employee they had and using "data" (peer reviews and results delivered, mainly) to fight over which employees got into the top and bottom tiers.
- geekbird 5y agoYep. This creates a lateral sabotage, work stealing and kiss up culture.
- vintermann 5y agoW. Edwards Deming posited that management was responsible for more than 85% of the causes of variation. If this is true, I modestly suggest replacing the CEO in roughly 4 out of every 5 months. (Somehow stack ranking logic never gets applied that way.)