3 ms·
Largely you're still ranking your performers from top to bottom, so it's a matter of placing the line at the bottom in the right place to get the desired percen
by mjr00 4y ago
Largely you're still ranking your performers from top to bottom, so it's a matter of placing the line at the bottom in the right place to get the desired percentage. Even then there was still a lot of debate among department managers around people on the borderline least effective category. There were usually very clear outliers who were definitely LE (people clearly coasting, people who didn't show up to work regularly), and sometimes that was enough. Other times managers did have to push each other to be brutally honest about those who were borderline, essentially asking, "If you fired this person and got a replacement, would the replacement be more effective than the current person within 6 months?"
Keep in mind it was never a hard quota, though in my case at amzn I did have a few times where the GM (so manager of ~1500 org) pushed back and said not enough people were in LE for our department, in which case a few borderline people did unfortunately have to get put into LE.
- the_af 4y agoSounds hellish. Also seems to ignore these aren't replacement parts, these are your team mates or reports, actual humans with names and families attached. If they weren't coasting or not showing up for work, what you describe sounds like yet another alienating, dehumanizing process at work.
- oblio 4y agoYour company probably does it, too, they just don't tell you and they're small enough nobody cares. Unless it's a super small company or you're the owner of your company.
- the_af 4y agoMy company probably does something like it, true. What's hellish is that the ranking is forced, you must put people on a PIP or rank them "low", which is absurd. Being told to meet a quota for low performers is bizarre.