5 ms·

That's interesting. So at GE how often were software architects/managers or higher actually "managed out" rather than simply threatened? From my vantage point

That's interesting. So at GE how often were software architects/managers or higher actually "managed out" rather than simply threatened? From my vantage point bottom grading looks like a political ploy in which people at the bottom are simply churned to protect the bureaucracy and not upset the power structure. This is a valid alternate viewpoint on what you call 'bad fit.' In other words the sole criteria that you mention is respect for management and not objective productivity or profitability. At GE did you ever attempt to put a dollar amount on contributions?

davismwfl 14y ago
Actually, I would say that at least in the division I was in we took 360 reviews very seriously. So for example if a mgr had bad peer and subordinate reviews but a positive manager review HR would step in and force a resolution. If none of (or only a minority of) your peers or subordinates trust you it didn't matter what your manager thought. Now that said training was always the first thing to try, which in fairness we did with any knowledge worker. As for contributions and measuring impact yes, the entire team had bonuses based on performance and results. In fact we tracked milestones to expected costs and if a team beat it they were rewarded. Not just a team lead but the whole team. I so hated filling out WBS cards. While I was there we had three changes in various leadership positions because of team dynamics. Honestly, at least in my group my complaint was sometimes to high a sensitivity to team grumbling. But I know there were places in the organization where protecting management was done, which is complete BS in my book. I also totally disagreed with some arbitrary numbers we had to meet, like having a certain percentage of our project developed offshore. That was asinine and made no logical sense but to supposedly save a few dollars, and my bet it cost us more than it ever saved us.
- johnrgrace 14y ago
  The problem is if HR is slack or you give a few political managers toeholds, the whole system goes sideways. I've worked in a place and seen this happen with a change of about 20% of the divisions management in 18 months and the entire forced ranking system became a political circus.
  - davismwfl 14y ago
    Yikes, that would suck. But I totally agree with what you said. If people drop the ball (or poison gets in the system in quantity) it is always an issue, and when that becomes systemic I see a lot of the talented people vote with their feet and move on. Which when you are an employee is really your only option, assuming you feel you can't effect change. A good employer will recognize this and look for a root cause after one or especially more A player(s) leave, a bad employer will just look at how to blame the employee(s) that left for the problem(s).
davismwfl 14y ago
One other note. A bad fit was someone who was not a team player, wouldn't follow the basic rules(like show up to work), couldn't meet realistic deadlines or who overall failed at their job. And at least in my team these people repeatedly failed. I never saw someone moved out that hadn't been warned, talked to and had some training. So I get why people are skeptical but I really believe more teams worked like mine than the others. I was exposed to a lot of divisions in a short period and we knew there were horrible teams. unfortunately the bad teams always seem to get more attention and play. But without having all the facts I can't say which really was the most common, except to say I think it worked well for our team overall. Not to say there wasn't plenty of BS pandering and crap we did otherwise. Hence why I left and sought out different environments.

davismwfl 14y ago

Actually, I would say that at least in the division I was in we took 360 reviews very seriously. So for example if a mgr had bad peer and subordinate reviews but a positive manager review HR would step in and force a resolution. If none of (or only a minority of) your peers or subordinates trust you it didn't matter what your manager thought. Now that said training was always the first thing to try, which in fairness we did with any knowledge worker. As for contributions and measuring impact yes, the entire team had bonuses based on performance and results. In fact we tracked milestones to expected costs and if a team beat it they were rewarded. Not just a team lead but the whole team. I so hated filling out WBS cards. While I was there we had three changes in various leadership positions because of team dynamics. Honestly, at least in my group my complaint was sometimes to high a sensitivity to team grumbling. But I know there were places in the organization where protecting management was done, which is complete BS in my book. I also totally disagreed with some arbitrary numbers we had to meet, like having a certain percentage of our project developed offshore. That was asinine and made no logical sense but to supposedly save a few dollars, and my bet it cost us more than it ever saved us.

johnrgrace 14y ago
The problem is if HR is slack or you give a few political managers toeholds, the whole system goes sideways. I've worked in a place and seen this happen with a change of about 20% of the divisions management in 18 months and the entire forced ranking system became a political circus.
- davismwfl 14y ago
  Yikes, that would suck. But I totally agree with what you said. If people drop the ball (or poison gets in the system in quantity) it is always an issue, and when that becomes systemic I see a lot of the talented people vote with their feet and move on. Which when you are an employee is really your only option, assuming you feel you can't effect change. A good employer will recognize this and look for a root cause after one or especially more A player(s) leave, a bad employer will just look at how to blame the employee(s) that left for the problem(s).

davismwfl 14y ago

One other note. A bad fit was someone who was not a team player, wouldn't follow the basic rules(like show up to work), couldn't meet realistic deadlines or who overall failed at their job. And at least in my team these people repeatedly failed. I never saw someone moved out that hadn't been warned, talked to and had some training. So I get why people are skeptical but I really believe more teams worked like mine than the others. I was exposed to a lot of divisions in a short period and we knew there were horrible teams. unfortunately the bad teams always seem to get more attention and play. But without having all the facts I can't say which really was the most common, except to say I think it worked well for our team overall. Not to say there wasn't plenty of BS pandering and crap we did otherwise. Hence why I left and sought out different environments.