3 ms·

I think grading people to a standard is very difficult. At the last place I worked I was managing people and we were given a set of "standards" to rate employe

I think grading people to a standard is very difficult. At the last place I worked I was managing people and we were given a set of "standards" to rate employees on, used to determine raises, promotions, and so on. I tried my best fairly evaluate my reports, but obviously the standards are inherently imprecise and so the evaluations are mostly qualitative. I found that other managers, wanting to do well by their reports, more leniently interpreted the standards and their reports were promoted more and treated better than my own. So, wanting to do well by my reports, I re-calibrated my own evaluations to be more lenient. The other managers responded in kind. This arms race continued until upper management found it to have essentially broken the whole system. So then we were asked to rank the performance of reports on our team. I liked everyone on my team and wanted the best for all of them, but also had no difficulty putting them in order from most productive to least productive, with maybe the occasional tie here or there. Anyway, the whole experience kind of highlighted to me some of the issues with "objective" standards and some of the benefits of relative standards.

psunavy03 2y ago
Promotions are always going to be subjective because they're a judgement call about how well the person will perform in a more senior role. Firing someone is different; the bar for that is that they are squarely underperforming relative to what is reasonably expectable. The idea that some fixed percentage of people always underperform is possibly Jack Welch's most toxic contribution to management, and with all the BS he spewed over the years, that's saying something. It makes people compete against each other Hunger Games-style as opposed to working as a team.
- jaredklewis 2y ago
  Well I guess I don't see how a manager can determine if someone is "underperforming relative to what is reasonably expectable" without the issues I mentioned in my first post, namely that there is no objective way to make that determination. Managers will mostly be incentivized to determine that no one is ever underperforming relative to a firing standard. And maybe it wasn’t clear, but at my previous company, those evaluations were not just used for promotions, but also who to PIP. There is also the more philosophical question of where that standard would come from in the first place. And what if the business finds that the average applicant meets a much higher standard than the current firing standard of the company? It would seem to then make sense to raise the company's own firing standard.
  - xigency 2y ago
    Of course you can always make things so entirely vague as to be completely meaningless while still asserting that you are constantly improving by adopting a slogan like "raising the bar."

psunavy03 2y ago

Promotions are always going to be subjective because they're a judgement call about how well the person will perform in a more senior role. Firing someone is different; the bar for that is that they are squarely underperforming relative to what is reasonably expectable. The idea that some fixed percentage of people always underperform is possibly Jack Welch's most toxic contribution to management, and with all the BS he spewed over the years, that's saying something. It makes people compete against each other Hunger Games-style as opposed to working as a team.

jaredklewis 2y ago
Well I guess I don't see how a manager can determine if someone is "underperforming relative to what is reasonably expectable" without the issues I mentioned in my first post, namely that there is no objective way to make that determination. Managers will mostly be incentivized to determine that no one is ever underperforming relative to a firing standard. And maybe it wasn’t clear, but at my previous company, those evaluations were not just used for promotions, but also who to PIP. There is also the more philosophical question of where that standard would come from in the first place. And what if the business finds that the average applicant meets a much higher standard than the current firing standard of the company? It would seem to then make sense to raise the company's own firing standard.
- xigency 2y ago
  Of course you can always make things so entirely vague as to be completely meaningless while still asserting that you are constantly improving by adopting a slogan like "raising the bar."