3 ms·

Creator of the new group mentioned here... My opinion is this. PIP is needed. URA projections are needed, but need revised and reformed. The question remains..

Creator of the new group mentioned here... My opinion is this. PIP is needed. URA projections are needed, but need revised and reformed. The question remains..is how should either be implemented. I think URA metrics should be nothing more than a suggestion of what's likely the case. Example? Say Amazon has 1.5M employees. URA hypothetically set to 6%, Currently, That's 90,000 employees worldwide who would be considered underperformers and should be eliminated. To me, that is absurd. How I think it should be carried out. Lower URA to 3%, 35,000 total employees. Change URA to "Underperformance Risk". There's a good chance 3% of employees are indeed underperformers. However the question remains..how are we targeting such? Warehouse associate tracking is easy. They make up the majority. Non WHA folks is a bit harder. So we need to focus on their accomplishments, ticket resolution, other verifiable data which can attribute to their performance. I.E. - How many of their resolved issues needed reopened due to misdiagnosis? - How many unsuccessful attempts to resolution of an issue? If unsuccessful, are there attempts made to properly escalate and learn from such failed attempt? Projects that required rework or additional assistance? Manager direct report attrition? Thing is, requiring a certain percentage to be let go is absurd. Maintaining a target percentage of employees to identify at risk of underperforming is more ideal IMO. Then figure out a way to identify genuine underperformers, and actually make the attempt to get them to improve. Also, give underperformers a chance a one time chance to relocate, down-level, or find a role which best fits their demonstrated skill set. We need to eliminate the fact that a Manager can unilaterally request a Focus entry. They can accomplish this by simply ommitting certain accomplishments of affected employees via OLR, therefore making them look less than ideal. Also, Peer feedback is terrible. If they're your peer, chances are they'll be looking to promote. You're competition to them. It's human nature. We need to emphasize stakeholder and those who are a level higher..their feedback on the performance of an employee. Peer feedback should only be used as a way to Guage whether the Bar is at the right threshold for such level/role. We are a hypersensitive Data collection organization. There's no reason other than acts of God where we can't accomplish such. Additionally, I am human, and my ideas aren't perfect. That's why I created this group. To show the absurdity and encourage a channel for those involved to express their experiences, concerns or ideas for improvement.

BrandoElFollito 3y ago
Up to now I was reading this as a US-centric story. You mentioned "worldwide" in your comment so it changes the game. The concept of PIP in Europe is very difficult to use in a similar way as in the US. You have all kind of safety nets before a random HR person states that you failed. Usually you want to find an arrangement, especially when talking about a generalized practice. I am sure that in order parts of the world this will be easier, more difficult or same as in the US but it needs to be appraised on a country per country basis.
sokoloff 3y ago
There are a lot of managers who would never fire someone for what I’ll call “routine underperformance” (to distinguish from harassment, job abandonment, etc.) If a company thinks some non-trivial percentage of the employee population is likely to be underperforming to the extent they should be fired, they probably should implement a URA target (or “rank and yank” or similar). I’m with you in disliking such policies, but if you want forced turnover of those ranked low-performing, you have to make it a hard policy, because human managers dislike firing low-performing employees who seem like they’re trying.
- avidiax 3y ago
  How much damage does a routine underperformer cause vs. creating a very toxic corporate culture where routine underperformers learn that it's easier to slow others down and those same managers now hire underperformers on purpose?
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    That's why I don't like quota-based policies, but never firing underperformers also has its own significant problems, so finding the right balance is important. Neither pin is a good place to be.

BrandoElFollito 3y ago

Up to now I was reading this as a US-centric story. You mentioned "worldwide" in your comment so it changes the game. The concept of PIP in Europe is very difficult to use in a similar way as in the US. You have all kind of safety nets before a random HR person states that you failed. Usually you want to find an arrangement, especially when talking about a generalized practice. I am sure that in order parts of the world this will be easier, more difficult or same as in the US but it needs to be appraised on a country per country basis.

sokoloff 3y ago

There are a lot of managers who would never fire someone for what I’ll call “routine underperformance” (to distinguish from harassment, job abandonment, etc.) If a company thinks some non-trivial percentage of the employee population is likely to be underperforming to the extent they should be fired, they probably should implement a URA target (or “rank and yank” or similar). I’m with you in disliking such policies, but if you want forced turnover of those ranked low-performing, you have to make it a hard policy, because human managers dislike firing low-performing employees who seem like they’re trying.

avidiax 3y ago
How much damage does a routine underperformer cause vs. creating a very toxic corporate culture where routine underperformers learn that it's easier to slow others down and those same managers now hire underperformers on purpose?
- sokoloff 3y ago
  That's why I don't like quota-based policies, but never firing underperformers also has its own significant problems, so finding the right balance is important. Neither pin is a good place to be.