[bobtn]

Good post, ctwhitechin.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by bobtn

mlassoff, The real message I see from your post is you don't have the guts to hold people accountable. A major reason for the 20/70/10 rule often used is the very human instinct aka the inability to either improve or terminate the 10 percent.

That is not cutthroat. Its simply treatment differentiated by individual merit. The union mindset adores that let the slackers be tude , of course, and its brought down tons of companies.

BTW, increased profits and revenue are needed, as we all cost more each year. Just as employees for years demanded COLs, and no one thought it greedy, equity players deserve COLs, too, which do not occur w/o growth. But I know of few productive employees who fear for their jobs. I know many who aren't good performers who do fear for theirs, as they should.

Really? How utterly insulting. In the past 18 months I grew my company 350%, traveled 100,000 miles, wrote a book and won a national award. I did this while on chemo for colon cancer, so it takes some gall to come here with assumptions and arrogance and judge my "guts." Especially because I don't foster competition that yields in multiple firings among people who are trying to feed their family.

Over the years I probably hired 75 people and fired 15. Hire slowly and fire quickly. I made a couple of hiring mistakes. They were corrected quickly. Well managed teams are VERY accountable. When it comes to business and management Bob, you're peeing in my pool here.

The bottom 10% rule-- I think popularized by Jack Welch-- where the bottom 10% get canned every year is absurd. With good hiring practices it is completely possible to make good hiring decisions 95% of the time. Most people can be coached and employees should be evaluated against the specific objectives of their job-- not against each other.

Are you a manager Bob? If you are I'd encourage you to reexamine your attitudes. If not, I'd encourage you to read some organizational management theory. As a manager I am responsible for a company that feeds four families and two single adults. If my company fails these people lose their livelihood. This fact humbles me, Bob. To cavalierly suggest that competition that pits employees against each other, poisons the work environment and causes people to lose their livelihoods is superior because it fits in to some political theory that you espouse is pretty weak.

[dazzleman]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Really? How utterly insulting. In the past 18 months I grew my company 350%, traveled 100,000 miles, wrote a book and won a national award. I did this while on chemo for colon cancer, so it takes some gall to come here with assumptions and arrogance and judge my "guts." Especially because I don't foster competition that yields in multiple firings among people who are trying to feed their family.

Over the years I probably hired 75 people and fired 15. Hire slowly and fire quickly. I made a couple of hiring mistakes. They were corrected quickly. Well managed teams are VERY accountable. When it comes to business and management Bob, you're peeing in my pool here.

The bottom 10% rule-- I think popularized by Jack Welch-- where the bottom 10% get canned every year is absurd. With good hiring practices it is completely possible to make good hiring decisions 95% of the time. Most people can be coached and employees should be evaluated against the specific objectives of their job-- not against each other.

Are you a manager Bob? If you are I'd encourage you to reexamine your attitudes. If not, I'd encourage you to read some organizational management theory. As a manager I am responsible for a company that feeds four families and two single adults. If my company fails these people lose their livelihood. This fact humbles me, Bob. To cavalierly suggest that competition that pits employees against each other, poisons the work environment and causes people to lose their livelihoods is superior because it fits in to some political theory that you espouse is pretty weak.

I agree with you about the Jack Welch style of management. I don't think it brings out the best performance in people. People should only be let go if their performance warrants it. Of course, the way government runs is the other extreme, with unions protecting the worst employees and therefore discouraging good performance.

[bobtn]

Mlassoff, For someone running an org, you aren't fully knowledgeable about the 20/70/10 rule. The 10% are not canned right on the spot; they are given significant time in order to become part of the 70%. A significant chunk do get up to acceptable standards, and are than secure in their jobs.

I am surprised you did not know that. It was a well publicized system, and Ford and others have used it through the years, too..same way..NONE fired 10% on the spot.

Yes, I'm in management, mlassoff, and that 5-1 ratio hires to fires, well ours is higher than 5-1, and I'm delighted it is. But if it were not, I would still do whatever was required to have the entire group thrive. Its about using an objective mindset to make decisions regarding individuals, whether they have families, are single, are secure financially or not, is not pertinent to the objective nature required to make fair decisions..

BTW, they did admit in many cases what I told you, 20/70/10 was largely used after Ford execs noticied they were seeing summaries of departments with 100% above average performers. We both know that is statistically impossible. Just as colleges have had grade inflation to smooze those paying $40k, with median grades at schools like Harvard a full point above just 15 years ago, corps often suffer the same fate. So the 20/70/10, IMO, by what the execs said, inferred more about managements inability than their subordinates.

[bobtn]

mlassoff:"Hire slowly and fire quickly."

I agree only with the first part. We never got rid of anyone , who was simply not up to par, w/o working with them for extended periods of time, in order to NOT have to fire them. Malicious reasons, I agree, call for quick firing. But not the majority..I'd find quick firing to be an inhumane thing to do.

[dazzleman]

Originally Posted by bobtn

mlassoff:"Hire slowly and fire quickly."

I agree only with the first part. We never got rid of anyone , who was simply not up to par, w/o working with them for extended periods of time, in order to NOT have to fire them. Malicious reasons, I agree, call for quick firing. But not the majority..I'd find quick firing to be an inhumane thing to do.

It's a judgment call, but it often is better to fire quickly, once you're pretty sure the person isn't going to work out. Any time I've had to fire somebody, my biggest mistake has been not doing it sooner. It's really no good to either party to allow an indefinite continuation of an unsatisfactory situation.

[JViello]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Really? How utterly insulting. In the past 18 months I grew my company 350%, traveled 100,000 miles, wrote a book and won a national award. I did this while on chemo for colon cancer, so it takes some gall to come here with assumptions and arrogance and judge my "guts." Especially because I don't foster competition that yields in multiple firings among people who are trying to feed their family.

Over the years I probably hired 75 people and fired 15. Hire slowly and fire quickly. I made a couple of hiring mistakes. They were corrected quickly. Well managed teams are VERY accountable. When it comes to business and management Bob, you're peeing in my pool here.

The bottom 10% rule-- I think popularized by Jack Welch-- where the bottom 10% get canned every year is absurd. With good hiring practices it is completely possible to make good hiring decisions 95% of the time. Most people can be coached and employees should be evaluated against the specific objectives of their job-- not against each other.

Are you a manager Bob? If you are I'd encourage you to reexamine your attitudes. If not, I'd encourage you to read some organizational management theory. As a manager I am responsible for a company that feeds four families and two single adults. If my company fails these people lose their livelihood. This fact humbles me, Bob. To cavalierly suggest that competition that pits employees against each other, poisons the work environment and causes people to lose their livelihoods is superior because it fits in to some political theory that you espouse is pretty weak.

I mostly agree with you here. The worst thing is having to let someone go...more so when it's a factor of negative growth or the like and not of their own doing. I think I was more upset after 9/11 and our sales dropped like a rock and I had to let people go. I didn't sleep right for weeks.

However, the one thing I will say in your above scenario is that if one person is cause you and the other families livelihood at risk, it is generally not worth keeping them around hoping for the best. Perhaps that's what you mean by fire quickly?

Originally Posted by dazzleman

It's a judgment call, but it often is better to fire quickly, once you're pretty sure the person isn't going to work out. Any time I've had to fire somebody, my biggest mistake has been not doing it sooner. It's really no good to either party to allow an indefinite continuation of an unsatisfactory situation.

Amen...boy did I make that same mistake in the past. Had a couple guys I knew better and should have gotten rid of. I didn't and it grew like cancer. Learned that lesson quickly, but it cost me a lot. Now I do serious probationary periods. If you are willing to show me what you got for 90 days for minimal pay, I'll make it up to you afterwards retroactively and in writing and you'll be secure. Going forward there is at least now a benchmark to look back upon so it takes away a lot of excuses.

[bobtn]

It depends, dazzleman, if there is a possible way to improve their performance, letting that play out is a win-win. Also for all the GE's rule sounds mean half-truths, what went hidden is the most common exit (per their own findings) of the malignant botttom 10% was voluntary quits for other jobs. We have used it on occasion; where someone knows their work is sub-par, but its just a bad fit, we've allowed a reasonable period of time for them to find a situation better suited for them, while still employed. We knew that being unemployed is a disadvantage in terms of employer perception. Now we would not have accomodated years, but a matter of weeks or even a quarter perhaps, unless they were detrimental to the whole org, again it seemed a reasonable win-win.

Still friends with several of them today.

Now if JViello is talking of malicious types, that's different. Get rid of them ASAP. But the reason for sub-par performance matters. And I do agree with the rules' motives, which was primarily differentiation (performance).

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by bobtn

It depends, dazzleman, if there is a possible way to improve their performance, letting that play out is a win-win. Also for all the GE's rule sounds mean half-truths, what went hidden is the most common exit (per their own findings) of the malignant botttom 10% was voluntary quits for other jobs.

The hidden assumption in the GE scheme is that you can unambiguously rank or score people so that you can identify the "bottom 10%". For a job that is more than mundane, that's an untenable assumption.

The valuation of people is qualitative not quantitative once you're above the level of basic repetitive production work. And a simple rank order -- even if you believe you can do it -- is so inadequate to describe performance it's laughable.

I've worked in places where 2/3 of the people should have been fired, and I've worked in other places where virtually everybody was a stellar performer and nobody was inadequate.

[basehead617]

Ideally members in a properly-staffed, well-run department are complementary. They are likely not in a rankable order.