Fighting the Forced Ranking of Employees? 194
Allen asks: "The company I work for has a forced ranking system for performance reviews. Employees are ranked from 1 to 5, with 5 being the best, in a bell curve arrangement. Department managers are required to identify: 10% as 5s (excels), 20% as 4's (exceeds), 50% as 3s (fully meets), 15% as 2s (partially meets), and 5% as 1s (requires action). In an department of 100 employees, this means that 5 employees must be identified and labeled as ones, and at least 20 employees as below average. The net result is every employee in the department is competing against their peers to increase (or maintain) their ranking. We're supposed to work together as a team, and support each other to get the product out the door, but the forced ranking system encourages us to instead stomp on each other, and stab each other in the back, in order to secure a higher ranking. That and, after working our collective rears off to get a new product out the door, several of us were given below average rankings that we believe are undeserved. How would you fight a forced ranking system at your job? I enjoy the technology I work on, and I enjoy working with my peers, but this forced ranking system is very demoralizing."
You can post it AC (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You can post it AC (Score:2)
Heh (Score:4, Funny)
-Sean
Re:Heh (Score:4, Interesting)
i got a solution (Score:2, Informative)
Re:i got a solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Good system (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Good system (Score:5, Insightful)
But in my opinion this is a terrible system. The bell curve has no true logical basis. And even if it did, this system would still be flawed: assume a company of 1000 people split into 10 divisions of 100 people each. Under this system each of those 10 divisions must utilize this ranking system. But what if one division has all 100 of the "superstar" employees, and another has all the worst employees? Under this system, a certain percentage of really bad employees must be ranked as above average or "superstars" while a certain percentage of true "superstars" must be ranked at below average or failing.
I think any person who would implement such a system is a true "1" It is just an obviously bad system. They should simply allow each division head to rank at will, then essentially "meta-moderate" that persons rankings somehow. Have someone come in an audit the department from either the outside or from another department to see how accurate those rankings are... That would be a much better system...
Re:Good system (Score:2)
Woooah. Algorithms class flashback.
Re:Good system (Score:5, Interesting)
Many years ago, exactly this type of situation was one of the principle reasons that I decided to quit being a manager. As part of a corporate reorganization, we had assembled a team that was truly excellent -- everyone had been in the top third of the performance "ladder" in their previous organization. The next department over had not done nearly so well in the reorg and had a lot of dead wood. During a budget crisis, each department was required to put together a 5% list of the people that they would let go (fortunately, the crisis was more imagined than real and no cuts were made). One of the last chores I did before I went back to just being on the technical staff was to discuss everyone in my group's career plan with them. For two of them, I had to suggest that they might want to look for a position in a different department so that they could be "stars" rather than "duds".
At that time, there were only a handful of places where I could do the work that I wanted to do, and all of them used a system like this. I could live with it as a worker, but not as a manager. Still not sure, despite many years, if retreating from management rather than staying on and trying to change the system was the right thing to do or not.
Re:Good system (Score:4, Interesting)
Bell curve does have a logical basis.
Take engineering stats and learn about it.
Random process => normal distribution = bell curve.
Yes, you could get all the good people in one group, but that would be very unlikely. Possilbe, but unlikely, just like walking (tunneling) through a wall.
I once TAd a class with 200 students. Amazingly bell curve performance.
If you have to cut someone, wouldn't you rather it be based on a defensible metric of some sort rather than some arbitrary "suzie is cute, so I cut john". Yeah, it promotes backstabin and my for myself attittude.
Re:Good system (Score:2, Insightful)
And all the teachers that I ever had would rely on a bell curve, but not completely. If every person in the class got above 90% on a curved test, they would not have flunked the bottom portion. That would be grossly unfair.
Re:Good system (Score:4, Insightful)
+1 fireable person and +9 better than that. repeat.
Pretty soon, you get to the point where you've burned off the dead wood and are now burning your future forest. Otherwise, you are saying that people's performance automatically degrades and/or the HR department can't hire for sh*t (both of which may be true).
Anyway, I realize the parent might be joking, but seriously, these forced ranking things are only going to get more popular if for no other reason than lawsuit avoidance. You can't sue for a bad review if the hiring manager must give a certain percentage of "bad" reviews.
Re:Good system (Score:5, Interesting)
In my experience, managers begin to keep people around specifically because they're bad (although not unacceptable) performers. You need them to assign them their low ratings. Juggle their rankings each evaluation so that they don't get fired, and occasionally trade them from department to department. When layoffs appear, shed them first... but don't shed them before then, because, just as there are quotas for evaluations, there are quotas for layoffs.
It's a stupid game.
Re:Good system (Score:2, Interesting)
The system is in place to ensure that maangers actually spend time on evaluations and don't give everyone high marks. This is a good ideal, but a very poor method of achieving this goal. I am no HR person and I don't have
Re:Good system (Score:4, Funny)
Daniel
You can't beat 'em (Score:3, Informative)
Organize the Shop (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Organize the Shop (Score:4, Funny)
I'm the CEO of a company and the union here has a too easy performance review scheme: The lowest ranking is "Average" and at least 50% of workers have to fall into "Super-human". How can I fight this?"
Re:Organize the Shop (Score:2, Insightful)
4 step process (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Let someone in HR know how you feel, and how you think it will negatively affect the performance of your group as a team. Do this officially, in person.
3. Obtain new job, as HR will ignore you, because it was their crummy idea in the first place.
4. Write well thought out letter, addressed to your boss, CC'ing the HR department head, your department head, and the CFO, letting them know why you are leaving. Won't help you, but may help some of the poor schmucks that are still there.
Re:4 step process (Score:2)
The CEO may find it interesting as to the reasons behind his engineers leaving....
Re:4 step process (Score:3, Informative)
Your burning some bridges here. While I don't disagree this is a nice action I'd be sure I have a place to work before I started complaining.
Re:4 step process (Score:3, Informative)
At this point, the bridges are *already* charred
hunks of ash held together by rusted nails.
Recognize that the corporation's personnel department
has placed your team on the far side of a chasm and
applied flame throwers to the trestle.
If this behavior is not corrected immediately by higher
level management, where "immediately" is "fast enough
that the question of retroactive pay adjustment never
has to come up" -- then the corporate management has
watched the bridge burn, probably ro
Re:4 step process (Score:2)
His point was to actually find a job before you start complaining, not just start looking and then start complaining. I think that would be a wise idea.
Re:Burning bridges: so what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Many moons ago, I was leaving a job which still needed my skills. They weren't able to find someone to replace me and I agreed to stay on as "on-call" working 10-20 hours a week until a replacement was found. On my last "official" work-day as a full time employee, my final pay-check was supposed to be provided to me (arrangements had already been made). In stead, the payroll department insisted that I wasn't to get my final check until the last day of the month (as was the practice with all "on-call" personnel -- by the way, my last day happened to fall on the first of the month.
I spent two days argueing against the corporate buracracy. I gave up, filed an official "resignation letter" and demanded my final paycheck within 48 hours (as required by california law) and stated that failure would result in a complaint to the labor board and applicable fines.
I had my check the same day, I refuesed to work "on-call" and the company lost about 30% of their clients (averaging about $800k/month) due to their inflexability.
End result: my old employeer bacame more "employee friendly". It had been once, when privately owned -- during my time there, they were sold to Corning and became bottom-line-zombies. The loss of a few million in revenue tought them that happy employees == better bottom line.
Re:4 step process (Score:4, Funny)
1. Talk a co-worker into using the 4 step process.
2. Repeat with other co-workers until conditions change or you have no co-workers left.
Re:4 step process (Score:2)
Which is not to say that your advice is bad. Indeed, it's just about the only thing you can do if the system doesn't work for you. The sad fact is the an individual can do very little to reform this kind of management nonsense. But it does make for a lot of spirited "Ask Slashdot" discussions!
At lea
Superb Post - Very Relevant!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Ob:Office Space (Score:2)
"If you want me to wear 37 pieces of flair like your pretty boy over there Brian, why don't you just make the minimum 37 pieces of flair?"
Ranking (Score:3, Funny)
It seems that we have found the first 1 in your group: you!
My experience (Score:2, Insightful)
In my area, we have traditionally not had required distributions, so most people were 1s and 2s (or so I suspect--I only see my numbers). This year they told everyone t
Re:My experience (Score:4, Funny)
I love this logic. As a supervisor, I go back to my employees and tell them to lower their performance so they don't ruin the distribution. That's managing to numbers --- yeehaw!
Re:My experience (Score:2)
Nope. The problem outlined by the parent is a real one. In the Navy supervisors would routinely pad the evaluations of their wor
Why is this a bad thing? (Score:4, Interesting)
OTOH, the "forced" rankings are, in my opinion, a good thing. It requires managers to not take the easy way out and just rank (relatively) poor performers as "average" and avoid confrontation. Also, it allows people to know where they stand within the company. The company I work for uses a system somewhat like the OP's, and though initially I was against it, after giving it some thought I think it's a good thing.
As for the backstabbing, etc. -- that is a problem that management needs to address. That sort of thing usually becomes pretty obvious after a short time and it shouldn't be tolerated. If those who are ranked lower than they want to be are given the support of management to address their areas of weakness, they can (and will) move up in ranking, unless everyone else does a better job of improving.
Re:Why is this a bad thing? (Score:2)
A true story.
B. was a technician at a large automotive supplier. He was a hard worker, and his manager had given him good rankings for twenty-five years.
Looking to trim the workforce in the near future, the company implemented a forced ranking system. Like many companies, this one had a fixed head count that they wanted reduced (about 10-20%).
B.'s manager knew th
Re:Why is this a bad thing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why is this a bad thing? (Score:2)
Just the opposite at my work. After a round of layoffs last year, we suddenly discovered that we have no one left that's expendable. There's twenty people in a department of twenty five whose departure would devastate the company. Two people are getting real close to retirement. One keeps saying "I don't know if I'll retire this year...it depends on how good of a raise they give me!"
Managing by numbers (Score:3, Insightful)
Encouraging employees to view each other as the competition is so stupid I hardly know where to begin. Just because something is a number doesn't automatically make it objective, especially if the numbers are force fit with a hammer to distribute along a gaussian curve for each department. Take a real objective number, say height, and measure the employees. You will never see anything that resembles a bell cu
Re:Managing by numbers (Score:2)
Your id
Different kinds of numbers. (Score:4, Insightful)
Good.
Again, I agree with most of the things you posted -- I just don't see them as any sort of argument against a ranking system of evaluation.
Well, ranking is very different animal from scoring which in turn is very different from scoring according to a predefined curve, which is often the next thing that happens after single number scoring is introduced.
Any good manager has his reports ranked -- it's critical. At any moment I know if disaster strikes, who the weak link is, and who has to be preserved. I keep this information close to my vest unless disaster is looming, in which case I will give the weak link heads up so he's not caught unawares. It doesn't do anybody any good to know what their rank is, and more to the point it doesn't do my employer any good. Also note that this rank is not a measure of the employee's talent, attitude, or virtuousness, but simply a ranking of the impact of the loss of that person on the team. I once worked with a guy who was by objective measures the weakest link -- least intelligent, least industrious, least knowledgeable. And this was in an outfit full of bright, knowledgeable, hard driving people. He turned out to be very important because he was the only person who didn't scare crap out of the customers. Mind you the other guys were respected, just that they didn't make normal people feel at ease. If I had been his manager, I'd have ranked him ahead of the more deserving employees, because he brought someting to the team that was missing. That's what capitalism is about: it's not rewarding virtue, its efficiently using resources.
Measurements are of course useful, if you have several good ones to work with. But you have to be aware of some simple facts about measurements. First, as pointed out above, in small to medium sample sizes, parameters like performance or height that vary widely will never fit a bell curve by inspection. Also: no one measure can tell it all. Trying to boil down a person to a single number is really a form of laziness: I don't want to think about how to use this person most effectively, just give me a number. Having a battery of scores on which an employee could be described would be useful, if you (A) had the instruments to measure these dimensions, and (B) still had latitude for judgement. Lacking good instruments for measuring these qualities, employees can still be evaluated using qualitiative judgements in these areas.
Measurements that are forced to fit a curve are completely worthless. In such a system employees are not being measured, they are being sorted into ranked pigeonholes and then this rank is being treated as statistically rational data. These scores are presumably compared across departments, which is pure malarky, one step down the ladder of statistical meaninglessness from adding up eye color. The practical example of this is two managers, one with a team that is composed of the best employees in the company, the other which is is composed of the worst. By "grading on a curve", we have made the two teams look identical, whereas we'd be better off dropping everyone on team B than losing a single member of team A.
Forcing each manager to fit his employees to any predefined curve is antithetical to the very concept of measurement. It's the ultimate laziness: give me a number -- but don't give me the real one, give me one that suits my needs.
That said, it's perfectly understandable why higher ups should wish for such a system. If it worked, it would be possible to make staffing decisions based on a simple arithmetical formula, and eliminate the need for judgements to be made at any level of management above the direct supervisor. In fact such a system would be too good, since you could replace managers with spreadsheets.
Re:Managing by numbers (Score:2)
Fun with numbers (Score:2)
Re:Why is this a bad thing? (Score:2)
Forced rankings also prevent a manager from inflating all the rankings across the board to mak
Sample Size (Score:2, Insightful)
Face Reality (Score:2, Interesting)
Start looking for a new job and when you get one, get revenge by quiting on the spot with out notice and leave them hanging dry.
Re:Face Reality (Score:3, Informative)
I swear to god, you get the worst career advice on this site. No wonder everyone here always bitches about their jobs, or not being able to find a job, etc. You cannot have the arrogant attitude so many geeks have and exp
Learn to live with it (Score:4, Interesting)
When the quota system was introduced, we all bristled at the idea of being forced to participate. We have to get ranked on our teams (with anywhere from 3 to 10 people), ranked within our projects (10 to 100 people), and ranked within our department (~1000 people), although the department rankings are broken down into seniority groups. Frankly, its frightening because as the groups get larger and the managers further from the cube farm, its harder and harder to make decisions about who is doing good work, and who isn't. It also brings into question how it is that we demonstrate value to our management.
But after all of our moaning, we realized that what our managers were trying to do is establish some objective framework in which they could measure us against objective metrics. I would much rather have a manager be forced to rank me with my peers with a policy document in hand to help decide which of us is the most productive, rather than have him pick people to promote and give raises to without ANY objective metric or policy. I don't go out to bars with my boss, but I don't want that to effect my performance review.
My point is this - ranking systems are an attempt at objectively gauging the performance of individuals. Quota systems are in place so that managers don't opt out of the hard part of telling people that they aren't as productive as their peers. Its harsh, and it isn't flawless, but compared with the alternative of an entirely subjective promotions/raises process, I'll take the ranking.
Re:Learn to live with it (Score:2)
Don't Do It (Score:4, Insightful)
but the forced ranking system encourages us to instead stomp on each other,
No matter how well they appear to cover their tracks, stompers get a reputation and no one trusts what they say. Including bosses.
Well, (Score:5, Funny)
Ask them to use a different distribution (Score:2)
Why must the distribution be a normal distribution? Are the employees at the company random selections from the population at large? Of course not.
I would lobby to have the distribution changed. You're not dealing with random people. You're dealing with people that are mostly exceptional when compared to the overall population. You already have a biased sample. The distribution used should reflect this.
Only one thing to do: (Score:2)
Quit (Score:2)
All the 1s resigend for "personal reasons" (Score:2)
Just call up a list of all the people who used to work for you, and tell HR they were 1s and 2s, so you "convinced" them to leave. All you have left now are 3s, 4s, and 5s.
Seriously, there is always a bell curve, but if there is someone on the bottom of it they are either someone you should fire, or, if you had kept all those incompetent to do the job, they would work out to 3s on the curve. That is the curve is skewed.
[Flamebait] Campaign for labour-friendly laws (Score:2)
So, while all the capatalists prepare their ammo, let me explain briefly. The US has extremely labour-unfriendly laws. Depending on your state you have little protection against anything, including retrenchment, being fired without a reason, sexual harassment, poor working conditions, etc. The Free Market philosophy says that sooner or later a job becomes too unacceptable for anyone to do, and the employer has to improve the situation.
Problem is, in the race for the Almighty Buck, this just ain't true.
Re:[Flamebait] Campaign for labour-friendly laws (Score:2)
So you're saying that companies should keep unproductive people onboard until the company is unprofitable and eventually is run into the ground and everyone is out of a job? That's insane. Around here, sexual harassment will get you fired in a heartbeat, so I'm not sure what your point is about that unless you're the one doing the harassment. People also sue their former employers because of perceived injustices of various forms. I'm not sure where you got your idea of work in the US, but it doesn't see
Add a trust dimension to the ranking (Score:5, Interesting)
Ranking systems are not neccessarily bad, they just need to be designed to provide incentives for desirable behavior. If a company wants teamwork, then make that part of the ranking .
Like peer reviews (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Add a trust dimension to the ranking (Score:3, Insightful)
The real problem with the rating system in question is twofold.
First, it assumes that employee quality is a perfect bell curve. That would be true only if positions are filled by a fully random process, but by assigning quotas, they demonstrate that they are more than willing to torture the data to fit their expectations.
The second is that having assigned reletive ratings to the employees, they are then conflated into absolute value judgements.
By enforcing the percentages, they have turned the rating
Leave. (Score:4, Insightful)
I know that by definition that ~50% of employees will be below average, but what counts is performance of these employees against the industry average, not against their immediate peers. That's what counts in the market anyways...
Take layoffs into account (Score:2, Insightful)
Consider: when layoffs occur, for the most part (yes, I'm aware of politics and favortism) the ones who get laid off are the ones who would be 1's and 2's in a quota system. Obviously, that leaves behind all the 3's, 4's, and 5's who, even though they are doing the same job they have always been and possibly a lot more, will now be forced to be evaluated as 1's and 2's. A
Get Out (Score:2, Interesting)
Somebody does (Score:2)
Get lots of 5's (Score:2)
Two very easy choices: Fish or Cut Bait (Score:3, Interesting)
Leaving is the simple solution - find a nice job somewhere that they don't care how you perform, the problem is that loosers and slackers will tend to hang out there
Game the systems: Figure out how you will be rated, and maximize your value to the management team. Bring your concerns about how other people are gaming the system. It turns out in environments I have been in with Ranking systems - the review feedback on backstabbers has not been very good, and people that genuinely help their team mates tend to do very well. YMMV depending on your manager.
I will also say that it is very important for you to trust your first line manager in this environment - they will be defending the rating that you get and are responsible for getting you bumped up, or having some other manager have you bumped down. It turns out that the managers are much more competetive in this environment than the employees ever will be (you ever seen two managers get into fisty cuffs with several managers trying to seperate them after a heated discussion on who's employee is better ?)
20% below average? Preposterous! (Score:2)
10% of employees are ranked as among the top 1%
25% are ranked from 1-10%
35% ranked from 11-25%
25% ranked from 26-50%
5% are ranked below average.
I'll refer to the above scale as the Modified Woebegone System (in Lake Woebegone, of course, all the children are above average).
Some tips from a top rated performer (Score:5, Interesting)
- Attitude - This is very important. You must have a positive attitude about the company and your work. Let everyone know that you are excited about the company and moving up the ladder within the company. Never be satisfied with what you have, always want more.
- Your Boss - You have to find out from your boss what it takes to get a top rating. Have a one on one meeting with your boss and let your boss know that you really want a top rating. Get them to tell you what steps you need to take. Follow up and make sure you are on the right track throughout the year.
- Documentation - You can't count on your boss to document your progress so do it yourself. Keep track of every project you are on and every class you take that can help you in your job.
- Projects - Get involved in projects any way you can. Your company probably has Six Sigma or BPI. Take advantage of these opportunities. If you see something that needs improvement, write up a proposal and sumbit it to you boss or whoever is in charge of such things.
- Flexibility - This not only means being willing to work overtime, but it means working out of your area as well. Look for opportunities to cross-train in other areas. Be willing to take on additional responsibility for no additional pay. Be eager to learn.
- Be an Expert - Become an expert in your job. Even if your job is nothing but cleaning toilets, know everything about it.
- Be a Team Player - Customers aren't just the poeple at home using your product, your teammates are also your customers. Find out what you can do to make other people's jobs easier down the line. Never say "That's not my job." Be willing to help anyone.
- Do Things by the Book - Always try to follow company policies and processes.
- Accept Responsibility - If you mess up, don't be afraid to admit responsibility. Apologize for messing up and ask what you can do to fix the problem to make sure it doesn't happen again.
You don't have to stab people in the back to get a good rating, but remember that no one else is going to help you. You are the one who is ultimately responsible for your rating. Don't let others discourage you either. If someone calls you a "company man" or brown noser, just smile and shrug. Also remember that showing up every day and doing your job well is what they expect you to do. While this is admirable it will only get you and average rating. You have to go above and beyond to get that top rating. I know you can do it so get after it!Re:Some tips from a top rated performer (Score:5, Insightful)
The only addendums I'd make are:
4. Projects - Don't over-extend yourself, though. When you step up, you need to be able to execute.
8. Do Things by the Book - Know what the whole "book" says, not just the parts written down. And know when/how to break/change the rules when they are broken. Each organization has a mechanism for change, written or unwritten. If you're stuck in an organization that does not, get out -- down that path lies madness.
Re:Some tips from a top rated performer (Score:2)
I agree about not over-extending yourself. Nothing looks worse than a neglected project.
Another good point about knowing how to fix things and change "the book".
I'll also add a #10. Set short and long term goals for yourself. Short term goals should be specific and within your reach to achieve. Long term goals should be fairly ambitious. Develop a personal improvement plan spelling out the steps you need to take to achieve these goals.
Re:Some tips from a top rated performer (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words, do the damn job at the best of your abilities, day in, day out and don't give a shit about the ranking system.
Re:Some tips from a top rated performer (Score:2)
We'd all be filling out our own evaluations if this were true.
I'm not bitter or anything, I get very good evaluations. The fact that you can do things to improve your rating is not the point.
The competitive rating system is how management compensates for lack of productivity due to a terrible work environment and the corresponding low morale. It's not sufficient to do your job to the best of your abilities, you have to kill yourself to work
Re:Some tips from a top rated performer (Score:2)
I think you are wrong about this. If you do the job to the best of your abilities and meet company expectations, then you will be rated as average. If you are consistently getting lower than average ratings, then you must not be meeting company expectations and you might want to look for a new job where your talents might be more suited to the job.
There
Re:Some tips from a top rated performer (Score:2)
if there is a company that ranks on a 5 point scale and the company has (for the sake of simplicity) 5 employees, they will be ranked 1 through 5 according to their performance relative to the other workers. This is bullshit because it gives you no useful information. If everyone at the company sucks, someone is still going to get ranked higher than everyone else. If everyon
Re:Some tips from a top rated performer (Score:3, Funny)
The cynic's guide to the earlier list.
Kiss butt. Be smarmy. Greed is good.
View from the other side... (Score:5, Insightful)
Many posters have claimed that management is not doing their job if there are people at the bottom. But relative to others, there are always people at the bottom. Forced ranking seems to be the only way for a middle manager to get a picture of who needs work and to get the line manager to acknowledge it.
This forced ranking was popularized by the GE management book a while back, where people were ranked A/B/C with a breakdown of 10/80/10 percent.
Being in the 10% of C's doesn't mean you get fired, it is a tool for management to decide who to focus on. The correct solution might simply be to move to a different group or position better suited to the persons skills or interests. Or it might mean more training. Or yes it might mean they will be put on a performance plan to make managements expectations clear, possibly leading to termination.
Such need not be public. The forced rankings can be divorced from annual review ranks, where someone could receive a meets expectations and still be a C. It could be managements job to figure out how to make this merely good employee be great.
For example, you might have a developer who writes good code, but who is very slow because they don't use tools to automate there work. I've seen this a lot. Getting a traditionally IDE oriented developer to learn to use command line tools, perl, or a decent editor with macros can increase their productivity. You wouldn't just fire them off the bat because they aren't as good as your other developers.
Re:View from the other side... (Score:2)
The problem with the ranking is that there will ALWAYS be that bottom 10%. Sure you can "focus" on this year's bottom 10%. But there will be another bottom 10% next year. And the year after that. And so on and so on.
I hate to sound cynical, but I think there's too many PHBs who are going to use this as a measurement, no matter how stupid it sounds to us mortals. They'll wonder why there's still ten p
Re:View from the other side... (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, the whole point is continual improvement so there is always a new 10%. And yes sometimes someone that was good enough last year is now on the bottom. But we are talking across large teams, not small teams. if you aren't talking about 50+ people or maybe 100+ the numbers are too small. yes you can assemble
"Other side" is mathematically illeterate (Score:3, Interesting)
"(T)he fact that half of their team is below average *for the team" is not a fact, and it is actually extremely unlikely for any team. The "normal distribution" applies (when it does) to very large samples. The smaller the group, the less applicable the normal distribution is. This is one reason why "grading on a curve" is absurd in anything but hug
Re:View from the other side... (Score:2)
"I've been on both sides of this issue. I don't understand how techies can argue against the fact that half of their team is below average *for the team*."
I have a simple question for you then...
There are three team-members. All three arrive on time, indeed, they all arrive early. All three contribute greatly to the project and produce great work. All three have great attitudes.
Now, which one do you think should get ranked as a "1," which translates to "needs action?"
Suppose for
Re:View from the other side... (Score:2)
Sad, but true.
In can be worse... (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't work there anymore...and I wouldn't work in the environment you talk about either unless I simply had no choice.
Obviously there are WAY too many people too high up in corporate America with ABSOL
Stop caring! (Score:2)
In related news: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In related news: (Score:2)
or just ignore it (Score:3, Funny)
I realize this is not for everyone, but I solve the problem through apathy. Regardless of my rating, I do the best job that I can on any task that I am assigned.
When I was actually in the middle of a business embroglio but remained steadfast in my particular conviction I was told "this will not look good on your performance review" I used a line that I'd been waiting for years to say in just this situation:
"The only way you can hurt me with a performance review is to roll it up and poke me in the eye"
I've been at this job 22 years, and fully expect to be here for many to come (by choice).
Re:or just ignore it (Score:2)
"If the customers are better off by me doing this, it won't matter. They don't read my performance reviews. Want to help, or should I let you know how it turns out?"
Worked on a system like this once (Score:3, Interesting)
The company had an OBJECTIVE way to measure the perfomance of each office or unit (proffit/loss - the bottom line) - if you were in a support group, like IS/IT, your departments rating was the SAME as the group(s) you supported - aka, your DEPARTMENTS rating was going to be a 1-5
Now, here's the important part - EVERYONE in the department starts the review off with the AVERAGE review of the department - aka, your department was a 3, everyone starts off at a 3, your department was a 4, everyone starts at a 4!
Your manager could then increase/decrease each person's review by 1 point, however, the AVERAGE of the department could NOT change. So, if you bumped a person UP from, say 3 to 4 (higher was better), you had to DROP someone from a 3 to a 2
Then inside each ranking, you had
1)Job category
and
2)Position in pay scale for that category
You were either "Underpaid", "Average" or "Overpaid" (MY terms, not theirs) Your raise amount differed by which bracket you were in - a 4 who was in the bottom bracket could expect a much better raise than a 4 who was in top bracket. A 2 in the middle or top had better not be expecting a raise - they weren't getting one, where a bottom 2 MIGHT. The 1s? At BEST they were getting warning notes, if not a pink slip
I traveled around the country with the HR folks installing the review database and data. Security was VERY tight. How tight? The server where this would be installed had ALL it's passwords LOCKED OUT, including all Admin passwords, except for MINE, and that was a random password generated at Home office. During the 1-2 days that the database existed on that server, it was NOT backed up, it was NOT in production, it was ONLY on the local segement, and ONLY the managers were allowed on a PC on that segment
It was an "interesting" time - when we walked into the office for "review time" you could SEE the sweat - the GOOD news is that almost all units were 3+. ONCE, and ONLY once did I walk into a field office that was rated a 2, and that was mostly because there were 2 departments that were rated 1 in the building. Let's put it this way - it was NOT pretty for those 2 departments - out of about 20 employees in those departments, I think 5 were left the next day. The FUN days were when you walked into a field office that was a 4 or 5. Those offices 1)Had their act together, and 2)Usually had enough of a clue to KNOW it - there was no sweat, and when we left at the end of 2 days, everyone was happy (10% raises were common for "average paid" line folks (more for lower paid), and this was before the
Fight the powah. (Score:2)
Because really... A bell curve fo
Clarification (Score:2)
Independent vs. Relative Ranking (Score:2)
However another company I used to for ranked employees relative to each other. The resulting list was broken into thirds, and depending on where you were in the list, either your exact place was made common knowledge or you were just told what third you were in. Here's the clincher: in some departments
Quit (Score:2)
You didn't sign up to be a backstabbing weasel, you signed up to code WAP servlets (or some other demeaning task in the wastebasket-dumping layers of power).
They're asking you to do more than they're paying you for, by having you fight amongst yourselves for their amusement.
So fuck 'em.
It costs about half your pay to replace you. If enough people quit, they'll realize they should just pay everyone 50% more and stop using them for managerial bloodsport.
Yeah (Score:2)
The company I work for has a forced ranking system too. A few weeks after each quarter closes, we get to find out where we stand. It's a nice binary threshold though, so it doesn't matter if you're on top, just as long as you're above enough people.
How would you fight a forced ranking system at your job?
Quit. Let a real man take your job.
seems to be a few career related questions lately (Score:2)
I wonder if it's the case where many slashdotters are getting out of college and are working at their first job in the real world, or if they are former .com employees trying to adjust to a regular business environment, especially a large corporate one.
If you look at it from the business' viewpoint, the reason why they do the point rankings or some other standardized performance ranking is to simplify things and to provide a documented process that includes a lengthy paper trail for when they get sued or g
Reverse the Tables (Score:2)
You could do something similar. Form your own questionare but have the targ
Re:syndycate maybe? (Score:2)
Re:syndycate maybe? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:IBM Does This... (Score:3, Funny)
That's not entirely true. IBM does use a numbering system (1-4 with 1 being roughly equivalent to "walks on water like Jesus"), but in my 7 years there, I never found, discovered, or believed that it was based on a bell curve-type assignment except for one year (2002) when the economy was crap, and our CIO at the time mandated that there would be no 1's given out that year without his express approval.
Coincidentally or not, I received a '1' that year and the two years previous to that. YMMV, so if you
Not any more (Score:2)
Re:IBM Does This... (Score:3, Interesting)