DOCSLIB.ORG

Managing the C Performer: an Alternative to Forced Ranking

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Managing the C Performer: an Alternative to Forced Ranking whitepaper Managing the “C” We contend that there is a better way to get managers to manage all employees, high and low performers Performer: An Alternative alike, than to resort to organizationwide forced to Forced Ranking distribution or forced ranking systems. The solution is a performance management system that supports By Patty Davis and Bob Rogers the organization’s strategic priorities by promoting Downsizing, cost cutting, and a perception among constant open and honest feedback between leader senior executives that managers fail to adequately and employee and by building managers’ competence deal with substandard and mediocre employees have and confidence in how to conduct these most difficult led to the rising use of various techniques to address discussions. these issues. These controversial management tools target the “C” performers, those who, through their Forced Ranking Evaluated lack of productivity and effectiveness, contribute the But, first, let’s review forced ranking and why more least to the organization’s bottom line. and more organizations are adopting it even while As strong proponents of performance management, others are sweeping the program into the dustbin of we clearly support the need for managers to do a failed evaluation systems. better job of filtering out their lower-performing Former General Electric chief Jack Welch, an employees. We also clearly understand that managers enthusiastic supporter of forced ranking, called the are reluctant to address substandard performance, practice “the vitality curve.” Other names applied to either through a lack of competence or confidence. it include “top grading,” “forced distribution,” and After all, most of us are not thrilled when we have to “cut to build strategies.” Whatever name it goes by, deliver less-than-favorable news to an employee. forced ranking is seen by leaders in a growing number Consequently, senior leaders have embraced various of organizations as a handy grading tool for creating a techniques to force managers to differentiate among high-performing culture. In their view, forced ranking employees based on performance and to take action enables managers to better manage low performers. on the lower-rated employees. We wholeheartedly GE’s success in implementing a forced ranking support this approach—the need for organizations to system is cited as the model by many of the 20 do this is clearly evident. Not doing so results in percent of U.S. companies that have adopted it in “mediocrity creep” and a loss of faith and trust by an recent years. (At General Electric, each year 10 organization’s top performers in their senior percent of managers are assigned the bottom grade; if executives. they don’t improve they are asked to move on.) To learn more, call your local DDI office or contact: The Americas ....... 412.257.0600 Southeast Asia.... 65.226.5335 France ............. 33.1.41.96.86.86 United Kingdom 44.1753.616000 Toll-free Canada... 800.668.7971 Australia.............. 61.2.9466.0300 Germany ......... 49.2159.91680 E-mail [email protected] Toll-free U.S. ........ 800.933.4463 Greater China ..... 852.2526.1188 Mexico............. 528.152.3200 Web ..................www.ddiworld.com DEVELOPMENT DIMENSIONS INTERNATIONAL What’s behind this popularity? Generally, forced One Manager’s Experience ranking is being adopted because senior leaders For some companies the perceived benefits of forced believe managers have not addressed performance ranking are far outweighed by its drawbacks. It often problems or adequately developed their staffs’ talent. results in low morale, caused when employees These leaders believe that forced ranking will help compete against each other instead of work with each managers who are not doing their jobs raise the level other. Furthermore, many employees believe that of performance in their organizations. their continued employment rests not on what they do Its proponents maintain that forced ranking addresses but on who supports them. The belief that your two issues that are key to building a high-performing survival in a forced ranking system boils down to your organizational culture. First, it encourages managers leader’s effectiveness as an advocate for his or her to identify and remove poor performers. Second, it employees can undermine the entire organization. forces a predetermined compensation distribution This point is illustrated by the following account curve, which allows managers to handsomely reward provided by a leader who has managed in a forced top performers while encouraging weak performers to distribution system. leave the organization. My experience as a manager (in a forced ranking Philosophically, DDI supports the desired results, but system) revealed that a leader’s communication not the process. Even Jack Welch is aware of the skills and credibility have more to do with an need to be sensitive to cultural issues. He recently employee’s rank than does the employee’s stated that the GE vitality curve can’t simply be performance. For instance, we had one manager dropped into an organization if that organization isn’t who was trained in behaviorally based assessment set up culturally for the implementation. W. James skills. These skills made it possible for him to be McNerney, Jr., one of Welch’s senior executives at more convincing when advocating for his GE, found this to be all too true when at 3M. He’d employees than other managers who lacked the been 3M’s chief executive for 18 months before he same skill set. In three years of observing this was able to convince senior leaders to start using the manager, I never saw him lower a ranking for one GE system. of his employees. If all managers were trained as this manager was, then forced ranking would Success at GE and 3M can’t mask the fact that the provide a level playing field in which employees adoption of forced ranking has not been without its could be placed in the right categories of problems. A rash of lawsuits has forced many performance. But this requires a culture that is organizations to reconsider using forced ranking. prepped for the implementation of a forced Take, for example, the Ford Motor Company’s ranking system. The organization I worked for did experience. Its system graded employees “A,” “B,” or not have such a system in place, so adopting “C,” with an initial requirement that 10 percent of the forced ranking resulted in dramatic culture shock. population be graded a “C.” The intent was simple: People were less willing to help others who they remove poor performers. Instead, the automaker would be ranked against. Employees were more landed in court. Eventually, after six lawsuits were eager to pass on to senior executives negative filed against Ford by disgruntled workers, former information about others. And people lobbied for CEO Jacques Nasser announced that the unpopular assignments to corporate headquarters because grading system was being modified. © Development Dimensions 2 International, Inc. MMII. MKTMPWP02–05020MA Managing the “C” Performer All rights reserved. DEVELOPMENT DIMENSIONS INTERNATIONAL they saw that those who worked closely with • Features a compensation process that is based on senior executives received consistently higher performance and pays the high performers more rankings. Within one year this worldwide than it pays substandard performers. organization changed the system as Ford did to It’s not unreasonable for organizations to want their take the onus off the ten percent at the bottom. managers to handle performance problems, develop This account echoes Jack Welch’s comments, that the talent, make tough decisions about removing poor missing key in this and other failed examples is a performers, and distribute pay equitably. All this can corporate culture that can successfully absorb a forced be done without implementing a controversial ranking ranking system. GE had such a culture, one based on system. So, why aren’t managers managing their honest feedback supported by a performance staffs? Most likely, it’s because they face one or management system. more of these four barriers: The value that Welch placed on open and honest 1. The organization does not have a good feedback at GE is illustrated in this question he asked performance management system in place. one conference audience. “How many of you work 2. Managers lack the competence or confidence for a company with integrity?” A sea of raised hands needed to set performance expectations, provide indicated that almost all thought they did. He then feedback, and deal with performance problems. asked, “How many of you get straight-between-the- 3. Managers are not held accountable for eyes honest feedback about your performance?” Very substandard performance or for dealing with few hands went up. That response, he said, supported substandard performers. his conclusion that unless an organization promotes the giving of feedback at every level, then that 4. The organization’s compensation system does not company does not have integrity. require that managers make tough decisions. A Prescription to Cure the Problem The “Good” in Good Performance The lesson to be learned from Welch’s argument is Management that forced ranking as a management tool will not Let’s address the first barrier. By “good performance necessarily lead to success alone. In fact, in most management system,” we mean one that: cases, the “cure” of forced ranking may be worse than • Establishes clearly defined but individual the “illness” of weak performers. The alternative is performance objectives for all employees. These one that should have been prescribed in the first objectives should support the organization’s efforts place: a performance management system that: to achieve higher levels of performance from one • Holds employees accountable for results. year to the next. • • Encourages and supports open, honest feedback Includes competencies (knowledge, skills, and between employees at all levels. behaviors) needed to achieve the organization’s business results in every employee’s performance • Provides a convenient mechanism for developing plan, and defines those competencies behaviorally.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Organizational Behavior with Job Performance
    Revised Pages Chapter Job 2 Performance ORGANIZATIONAL MECHANISMS Organizational Culture Organizational INDIVIDUAL Structure MECHANISMS Job GROUP Satisfaction MECHANISMS Leadership: INDIVIDUALINDIVIDUAL Styles & Behaviors Stress OUTCOMEOUTCOMESS Job Leadership: Performance Power & Influence Motivation Organizational Teams: Commitment Trust, Justice, Processes & Ethics Teams: Characteristics Learning & Decision-Making INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS Personality & Cultural Values Ability ccol30085_ch02_034-063.inddol30085_ch02_034-063.indd 3344 11/14/70/14/70 22:06:06:06:06 PPMM Revised Pages After growth made St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital the third largest health- care charity in the United States, the organization developed employee perfor- mance problems that it eventually traced to an inadequate rating and appraisal system. Hundreds of employ- ees gave input to help a consulting firm solve the problems. LEARNING GOALS After reading this chapter, you should be able to answer the following questions: 2.1 What is the defi nition of job performance? What are the three dimensions of job performance? 2.2 What is task performance? How do organizations identify the behaviors that underlie task performance? 2.3 What is citizenship behavior, and what are some specifi c examples of it? 2.4 What is counterproductive behavior, and what are some specifi c examples of it? 2.5 What workplace trends affect job performance in today’s organizations? 2.6 How can organizations use job performance information to manage employee performance? ST. JUDE CHILDREN’S RESEARCH HOSPITAL The next time you order a pizza from Domino’s, check the pizza box for a St. Jude Chil- dren’s Research Hospital logo. If you’re enjoying that pizza during a NASCAR race, look for Michael Waltrip’s #99 car, which Domino’s and St.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Performance Management Systems
    Vol 11, Issue 4 ,April/ 2020 ISSN NO: 0377-9254 THE FUTURE OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 1Dr Ashwini J. , 2Dr. Aparna J Varma 1.Visiting Faculty, Bahadur Institute of Management Sciences, University of Mysore, Mysore 2. Associate Professor, Dept of MBA, GSSSIETW, Mysore Abstract: Performance management in any and grades employees work performance based on organization is a very important factor in today’s their comparison with each other instead of against business world. There is somewhat a crisis of fixed standards. confidence in the way industry evaluates employee performance. According to a research by Forbes, Bell curve usually segregates all employees into worldwide only 6% of the organizations think their distinct brackets – top, average and bottom performer performance management processes are worthwhile. with vast majority of workforce being treated as Many top MNC’s including Infosys, GE, Microsoft, average performers [10]. Compensation of employees CISCO, and Wipro used to use Bell Curve method of is also fixed based on the rating given for any performance appraisal. In recent years companies financial year. The main aspect of this Bell Curve have moved away from Bell Curve. The method is that manager can segregate only a limited technological changes and the increase of millennial number of employees in the top performer’s in the workforce have actually changed the concept category. Because of some valid Bell Curve of performance management drastically. Now requirements, those employees who have really companies as well as their millennial workforce performed exceedingly well throughout the year expect immediate feedback. As a result companies might be forced to categorize those employees in the are moving towards continuous feedback system, Average performers category.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Seven
    CHAPTER SEVEN The Four C’s “...the sum of everything everybody in a company knows that gives it a competitive edge.” —Thomas A. Stewart What is intellectual capital? In his book, The Wealth It’s Yours of Knowledge, Thomas A. Jon Cutler feat. E-man Stewart defi ned intellectual capital as knowledge assets. Acquiring entrance to the temple “Simply put, knowledge assets is hard but fair are talent, skills, know-how, Trust in God-forsaken elements know-what, and relationships Because the reward - and machines and networks is well worth the journey that embody them - that can Stay steadfast in your pursuit of the light be used to create wealth.” It The light is knowledge is because of knowledge that Stay true to your quest power has shifted downstream. Recharge your spirit Different than the past, Purify your mind when the power existed with Touch your soul the manufacturers, then to Give you the eternal joy and happiness distributors and retailers, now, You truly deserve it resides inside well-informed, You now have the knowledge well-educated consumers. It’s Yours _ 87 © 2016 Property of Snider Premier Growth Exhibit M: Forbes Top 10 Most Valued Business on the Market in 2016 Rank Brand Value Industry 1. Apple $145.3 Billion Technology 2. Microsoft $69.3 Billion Technology 3. Google $65.6 Billion Technology 4. Coca-Cola $56 Billion Beverage 5. IBM $49.8 Billion Technology 6. McDonald’s $39.5 Billion Restaurant 7. Samsung $37.9 Billion Technology 8. Toyota $37.8 Billion Automotive 9. General Electric $37.5 Billion Diversifi ed 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Performance Management for Dummies® Published By: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774
    Performance Management by Herman Aguinis, PhD Performance Management For Dummies® Published by: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774, www.wiley.com Copyright © 2019 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey Published simultaneously in Canada No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise, except as permitted under Sections 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission of the Publisher. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008, or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions. Trademarks: Wiley, For Dummies, the Dummies Man logo, Dummies.com, Making Everything Easier, and related trade dress are trademarks or registered trademarks of John Wiley & Sons, Inc., and may not be used without written permission. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. LIMIT OF LIABILITY/DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY: THE PUBLISHER AND THE AUTHOR MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS WORK AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. NO WARRANTY MAY BE CREATED OR EXTENDED BY SALES OR PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS. THE ADVICE AND STRATEGIES CONTAINED HEREIN MAY NOT BE SUITABLE FOR EVERY SITUATION.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5. Performance Appraisal and Management
    5 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL AND MANAGEMENT LEARNING GOALS distribute By the end of this chapter, you will be able to do the following: 5.1 Design a performance management system that attains multipleor purposes (e.g., strategic, communication, and developmental; organizational diagnosis, maintenance, and development) 5.2 Distinguish important differences between performance appraisal and performance management (i.e., ongoing process of performance development aligned with strategic goals), and confront the multiple realities and challenges of performance management systems 5.3 Design a performance management systempost, that meets requirements for success (e.g., congruence with strategy, practicality, meaningfulness) 5.4 Take advantage of the multiple benefits of state-of-the-science performance management systems, and design systems that consider (a) advantages and disadvantages of using different sources of performance information, (b) situations when performance should be assessed at individual or group levels, and (c) multiple types of biases in performance ratings and strategies for minimizing them 5.5 Distinguish betweencopy, objective and subjective measures of performance and advantages of using each type, and design performance management systems that include relative and absolute rating systems 5.6 Create graphic rating scales for jobs and different types of performance dimensions, including behaviorallynot anchored ratings scales (BARS) 5.7 Consider rater and ratee personal and job-related factors that affect appraisals, and design performance management systems that consider individual as well as team performance, along with training programs to improve rating accuracy Do5.8 Place performance appraisal and management systems within a broader social, emotional, and interpersonal context. Conduct a performance appraisal and goal-setting interview.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report Survey on Performance Management
    March 5, 2019 To: All Telecommunications Locals across Canada Re: Final Report: Survey on Performance Management Members, We are happy to share the final report from our monumental members’ survey on stacked ranking and performance management. Thank you for all of the hard work that each of you put into promoting participation in the survey. Your emails, leafletting, postering, meetings and social media posts helped ensure that wide varieties of members’ experiences are reflected in the survey results. With a large membership base filling out the survey, the results provided some useful insight on how performance management and stacked ranking impacts members in their workplace. From October 22 to November 19, 2018, thousands of members responded to the survey. Their comments and experiences painted a clear picture of the ineffective and unfair treatment that employees face as a result of stacked ranking and other performance management techniques. We have attached the final report from the survey to this email, which you are encouraged to share with your members. This is not the last that you will hear about stacked ranking, but it is an important turning point. As we solidify the removal of stacked ranking for Bell Sales members and push to enforce that change across the sector, our campaign will grow as required to achieve the desired changes for all those affected. / 2 We are looking forward to getting that work done with all of you. In solidarity, Chris MacDonald John Caluori Assistant to the National President Assistant to the Quebec Director Tyson Siddall Telecommunications Director lmc/cope-343 Attach.
    [Show full text]
  • Currents in Commerce
    World Business Academy Volume 21 • Issue 2 Rekindling the Human Spirit in Business June 4, 2007 Subscribe to All Sorry Jack, But Curve-Induced Firings Our Publications Hurt Profits World Business Academy publi- Part of former GE CEO Jack Welch’s legend rests on a cations are the leading source of pedestal of forced curve firings that he instituted during information on topics of concern his tenure. Underneath his so-called “Vitality Curve,” 10% to business today and tomor- of employees were allegedly fired each year. More than row: corporate governance, one GE executive has told your editor that after a year or sustainability, macro-economic two they found ways to circumvent the “rank-and-yank” trends, emerging concerns and system. opportunities, new models for profitability, and the role of fossil Now, Stephen Garcia of the University of Michigan has re- fuels in our firms and civilization leased findings that indicate that forced-ranking systems itself. We deliver — once or twice that require managers to evaluate the performance of an a week, direct to your desktop employee against other employees can hurt productivity. — information that will allow you to be more effective, efficient, “The use of rankings to scale employee performance rela- and responsible in commerce, so- tive to that of their peers, instead of using predetermined ciety, and your own personal life. goals, may negatively affect employees’ willingness to Click here to sign up for cutting maximize joint gains that will benefit the organization. edge information that will help Individuals will care less about performing better on a you and your business, for just given task and will, instead, shift their focus to perform- $150 a year.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Practices for Performance Management
    Best Practices for Performance Management Manju Abraham, Netapp Rajen Bose, Yahoo Balu Chaturvedula, Yahoo Jay Crim, Google Kuk-Hyun Han, Samsung Manisha Jain, Google Ikhlaq Sidhu, UC Berkeley College of Engineering University of California, Berkeley Fung Technical Report No. 2013.10.10 http://www.funginstitute.berkeley.edu/sites/default/!les/PerformanceMgmt.pdf October 10, 2013 130 Blum Hall #5580 Berkeley, CA 94720-5580 | (510) 664-4337 | www.funginstitute.berkeley.edu The Coleman Fung Institute for Engineering Leadership, Lee Fleming, Faculty Director, Fung Institute launched in January 2010, prepares engineers and scientists – from students to seasoned professionals – Advisory Board with the multidisciplinary skills to lead enterprises of all scales, in industry, government and the nonpro!t sector. Coleman Fung Founder and Chairman, OpenLink Financial Headquartered in UC Berkeley’s College of Engineering Charles Giancarlo and built on the foundation laid by the College’s Managing Director, Silver Lake Partners Center for Entrepreneurship & Technology, the Fung Institute Donald R. Proctor combines leadership coursework in technology innovation Senior Vice President, O!ce of the Chairman and CEO, Cisco and management with intensive study in an area of industry In Sik Rhee specialization. This integrated knowledge cultivates leaders General Partner, Rembrandt Venture Partners who can make insightful decisions with the con!dence that comes from a synthesized understanding of technological, Fung Management marketplace and operational implications. Lee Fleming Faculty Director Ikhlaq Sidhu Chief Scientist and CET Faculty Director Robert Gleeson Executive Director Ken Singer Managing Director, CET Copyright © 2013, by the author(s). All rights reserved. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for pro!t or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the !rst page.
    [Show full text]
  • Insights on the Federal Government's Human Capital Crisis: Reflections
    Insights on the Federal Government’s Human Capital Crisis: Reflections of Generation X Winning The War for Talent by Amit Bordia Tony Cheesebrough MASTER OF PUBLIC POLICY CANDIDATES HARVARD UNIVERSITY JOHN F. KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT Professor Steve Kelman, Faculty Advisor Professor Alyce Adams, HLE Seminar Leader Professor Tom Patterson, PAL Seminar Leader Acknowledgements We are deeply grateful to our client, The Partnership for Public Service, for providing us with the opportunity to work on this challenging and incredibly important problem. In particular, we wish to thank Max Stier, John Palguta, and Kevin Simpson, who provided us with valuable insights and resources. We are extremely thankful for each of our 45 interviewees and several other respondents, who in their busy schedules found time to talk to us and share their insights candidly and patently. We owe our gratitude to Professor Steve Kelman for being a guide, a kibitzer, and a source of ideas, for being patient and flexible with us, for helping us when we hit a roadblock and for giving feedback at short notice. We thank Professor Alyce Adams and Professor Tom Patterson for their year-long guidance, inputs and help as our seminar leaders. We are thankful to Professor Elaine Kamarck for her input and guidance early on in our work. We also thank Professor Archon Fung for his inputs. Thanks to all those who helped, who inspired, and all those who supported, as we went through more than 500 man-hours working on this project. Insights on the Federal Government’s Human Capital Crisis: Reflections of Generation X i Table of Contents I Executive Summary I.1 Problem and Background ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Competing Through Talent
    Competing Through Talent My main job was developing talent. I was a gardener providing water and other nourishment to our top 750 people. Of course, I had to pull out some weeds, too. - Jack Welch 1. Introduction A recent study by the Aditya Birla India Centre at the London Business School shows that patents filed in the US by Indian subsidiaries of US multinationals have shot up from less than 50 in 1997 to over 750 in 2007. The study says that “Ideas originate in India, but come out of American corporations.”1 2 3 To quote Rajeev Dubey, President of Human Resources at Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., “Talent/human capital is the key to being globally competitive, and currently demand far outstrips the supply of human capital in the Indian scenario.” The future of business, nay society at large, depends on creativity, innovation, ideas, new patents, et al. The impact of the same depends on how organizations are able to spell success for themselves. 2. Definition Of Talent Talent is a special, often creative, natural or acquired ability or aptitude in a particular field or a power of mind or body considered as given to a person for use and improvement. Thus talent is person specific quality or attribute. Thus, managing talent means managing people and all their attributes. 1 Talgeri, K.N., ‘Matters of the Mind’, Fortune India, December 2011 (pg.80) 2 The challenge for talent in India is to ensure that ideas originate in India and also come out of Indian enterprise. 3 China is the second-largest producer of innovation in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Performance Management: Assess Or Unleash
    Research Report: Performance Management: Assess or Unleash Performance Management: Assess or Unleash Contents Executive Summary . 1 Key findings from the study . 2 Recommendations . 2 Old School Performance Management: A Practice that is Stuck in the Past . 4 Performance Management – a quick definition and a core challenge. 5 From pitching one employee against another to supporting a collaborative culture . 5 Perspectives from our survey . .. 6 The ever-changing process of performance management . 6 Components of a performance management approach . 7 The ratings: villain or hero? . 8 Mixed reviews: the end-of-year performance appraisal . 9 The importance of coaching & feedback year-round . 10 Disconnects by role . 11 Learning From the Pioneers . 12 From tweaking to trying something fundamentally new . 13 A growing wave – as more companies fine-tune the model we will learn more… . 13 One Size Won’t Fit All, But There are Some Guiding Principles . 15 Principle 1: Keep an eye on what is really happening . 16 Principle 2: Stop looking backward and begin looking forward . 16 Principle 3: It’s all about the conversation . 16 Principle 4: Balance structure and trust/skills . 18 Principle 5: New skills are required – for both managers and employees . 19 Principle 6: Empower the employee . 19 Casting the Manager as Coach . What is the Impact? . 20 A turning of the tables . 21 Manager’s belief in potential . 21 Coaching the individual . 21 Coaching for contribution and satisfaction . 21 When the manager isn’t the manager . .. 21 Moving towards a coaching culture . 22 Is the change right for you? . 23 4 Phases – Define, Set Accountability, Educate/Communicate/Support, Connect to Other Processes .
    [Show full text]
  • Vitality Curve from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Vitality curve From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A vitality curve is a leadership construct whereby a workforce is graded in accordance with the individual productivity of its members. It is also known as forced ranking, forced distribution, rank and yank, quota-based differentiation, and stack ranking. For example, there is an often cited "80-20 rule" — also known as the "Pareto principle" or the "Law of the Vital Few" — whereby 80% of crimes are committed by 20% of criminals, or 80% of useful research results are produced by 20% of the academics, and so forth. In some cases such "80-20" tendencies do emerge, and aPareto distribution curve is a fuller representation. Contents . 1 Rank-based employment evaluation . 1.1 Straight from the Gut . 1.1.1 "A" players . 1.1.2 "B" players . 1.1.3 "C" players . 1.1.4 Consequences . 1.1.4.1 Turning promotions into pay cuts . 1.1.4.2 Encouraging sabotage . 1.2 Criticisms of rank-and-yank . 2 Companies utilizing this management philosophy . 2.1 Management consulting . 2.2 General Electric . 2.3 Enron . 2.4 Motorola . 2.5 Dow Chemical . 2.6 IBM . 2.7 Yahoo . 3 Companies utilizing but later abandoning this technique . 3.1 Microsoft . 4 See also . 5 References . 6 External links . 6.1 Articles Rank-based employment evaluation Jack Welch's vitality model has been described as a "20-70-10" system. The "top 20" percent of the workforce is most productive, and 70% (the "vital 70") work adequately. The other 10% ("bottom 10") are nonproducers and should be fired.[1] [2] Rank-and-yank advocates credit Welch's rank-and-yank system with a 28-fold increase in earnings (and a 5-fold increase in revenue) at GE between 1981 and 2001.
    [Show full text]