Forced Ranking in the Workplace

[travelover]

The funny part to me is this was popularized by Jack Welch who was later shown to be a corporate kleptomaniac. Divorce papers detail Welch's perks from GE - Sep. 6, 2002

 

[Texas Proud]

Oh.... BTW, one of the biggest proponents of this style of management was Enron...

I worked with a couple of people at Enron and it was a dog eat dog existence... if you were ranked low you were let go...


We all know what happened to them!!!

 

[Blueskies123]

+1
I was in my favorite cafe yesterday having my favorite coffee and reading one of the business books I had just picked up after a leisurely stroll to the library (ah, the joys of retirement). At a nearby table a group of business people were quietly discussing some candidate for a hiring process they were obviously in the middle of. It was almost comical listening to how serious they were taking the discussion. Almost comical, I say, because what I heard (I was never interested enough to look up) was an exact mirror of who I used to be. If you're still working and acting as if the fate of the world depends on some business process, be afraid. Be very afraid. The life energy you waste, particularly on the political stuff, is only your own.

If I correctly understand one of your points then I could not disagree more with what you are saying. If you take only one process seriously it should be hiring. It is the single most important function a manager has and if you need to discuss it with other people then even better.
Maybe you were just making a general comment about seriousness but if you are going to get serious about thing, make it hiring.

 

[MildlyEccentric]

I had to participate in a forced ranking system at our company when we hired someone from GE as our president. After ranking everyone in the company, we fired the bottom 10% and put the next 10% on notice that they would be let go if they didn't improve. The company struggled for a few years and the ex-GE president eventually moved on as the company stock decreased in value. The rational for the system was to raise the level of talent in the company. It probably did clear out some low performers, but I don't think it truly benefited the company.

 

[MRG]

We had that at last mega. I fought it tooth and nail for 22 years. My contention was that if I had 10% below expectations then I was not doing my job. I was very aggressive about that stance and got way with it. It is one of the most ridiculous systems I have ever seen.

My old Megacorp found a new low.

"Oh you're in that job title, we don't have them anymore". Sad to see very talented people shown the door, many were promoted to the position!

 

[tfudtuckerpucker]

Yeah, Jack Welch's "vitality curve". We called it "rank and yank". To me it felt more like "decimation", except that was a punishment for cowardice for Roman soldiers. In my decades at megacorp on both sides of the table, I saw years when it was not enforced, and then years when managers were told to "go back and find more people to give bad reviews to". It has been used to clandestinely reduce headcount. Recently it appears to be falling out of favor, since I don't think it's very enticing for millennials or generation Z's.

 

[foxfirev5]

One of the major policies at my employer of 36 years. A combination of forced rankings and reapplying for my job in 2009 gave me the resolve to make the final push to ER this year.
It was funny after years of great reviews I got blindsided by forced rankings in 2014. The drones were long ago culled from the team and we had a nice cohesive productive team. I did let it slip that I had no fear about my job and could hang it up at any time. This was a subtle ploy to feel out any severance packages. Instead I got dinged with a 4 out of 9 rating.
The funny thing was that this year I gave my notice before the evaluation process and my evaluation score shot up. This was hilarious considering I only did what I wanted for the last year. It was obvious that they did not want to waste a poor evaluation on somebody who was leaving anyway.
I left on good terms and basically felt I got my year of severance by taking the time for a farewell tour of all my customers.

 

[euro]

Oh my, this thread conjures up many bad memories.... I had between 50-80 people on my team, and I'm very, Very, VERY, V E R Y glad indeed that I don't have to deal with this anymore!

 

[Options]

If I correctly understand one of your points then I could not disagree more with what you are saying. If you take only one process seriously it should be hiring. It is the single most important function a manager has and if you need to discuss it with other people then even better.
Maybe you were just making a general comment about seriousness but if you are going to get serious about thing, make it hiring.

When you're in that quagmire, all of it--the politics, management and so-called "leadership" mechanics, organizational logjams, etc.--seems so serious, almost life and death to hear the way people talk about it. Yes, if you're in that quicksand, I agree wholeheartedly nothing is more important for a manager than the crucifixion one must endure in hiring "the right people". And for what? Only to see another valued person on the "team" move on and have to go through the whole process again, perhaps. Or to have to deal with another team member who isn't performing, or an absenteeism issue, or to find your favorite executive leadership member has been replaced by one whose head is in a very dark place, or to find out a key project you've been working on for the last six months has just been killed. In business, it's just one piece of BS after another, like a kaleidoscope of never ending dysfunction that in the end amounts to...what? (I am reminded of that scene in the old Jack Nicholson movie where he retires after decades only to later see his boxes of precious office files stacked near the garbage after his replacement starts)

My point is, after retirement, the whole thing is just silly. Once you receive your get out of jail card, the mental energy you wasted on all that becomes laughable, at least it is for me. Now I'm off to my favorite cafe, my favorite coffee, and my book.

 

[travelover]

...............It was funny after years of great reviews I got blindsided by forced rankings in 2014............

The humorous part was how fast ratings changed for anyone when there was a change in their immediate manager. Golden boys tumbled into the mud and slackers suddenly became the new boss' right hand man. It can be highly subjective.

 

[ProspectiveBum]

The humorous part was how fast ratings changed for anyone when there was a change in their immediate manager. Golden boys tumbled into the mud and slackers suddenly became the new boss' right hand man. It can be highly subjective.

Agreed! This thread is reminding me why I got out of management!

 

[Big_Hitter]

(I am reminded of that scene in the old Jack Nicholson movie where he retires after decades only to later see his boxes of precious office files stacked near the garbage after his replacement starts)

he was an actuary too!

 

[rodi]

This thread is giving me nightmares.

Not only did my megacorp have forced rankings. They also made you have "quantifiable goals" stated at the beginning of the year - and the rankings were (potentially) based on whether you met the goals.

The problem is - the goals were required to be very specific... but they'd change programs/projects on us - so we'd end up with out of date goals every time. I was working on project X - which was the hottest project... then it was put on the back burner in favor of project Y and I was shifted over to that one... so of course I didn't meet my deadlines or quotas on project X. There were years where I was on my 5th project away from the stated goal project by the time they were doing the evaluation and ranking...

I lobbied to put "Work on whatever project my boss tells me to today, as hard as I can, and as fast as I can" on my stated goals - but that wasn't deemed specific or quantifiable enough.

 

[Sunset]

I was working a contract at an insurance company that just merged with another, and so they were going to have layoffs.

I was wanting to quit that contract and get one close to home.

So I told the manager, that with all the turmoil and the uncertainty of which projects would continue due to the merger, that I was willing to end now, and that would be one less headcount in her group.

She was pretty happy to have a layoff volunteer, instead of a regular employee.

 

[target2019]

Went through that ranking BS for almost a decade. Every company is different, but the megacorp I was in, reviews were a joke. Measurable results? LOL. Just LOL, and no further details necessary.

 

[H2ODude]

Just reminds me how wonderful retirement is. The two times of the year I hated most was annual appraisals and budget prep and defense.

I'd agree that who you hire/promote is probably the most important of all the silly things you have to do. Especially in a highly regulated environment like government where if you picked the wrong one you either had to live with it or prove they were incompetent. Or as my first boss said, catch 'em _______ in the hall!

 

[l8_apex]

For those of you currently employed at a company that does this kind of ranking, just know that you can choose to work at a company that doesn't have this type of bureaucracy. Of course you have to look for that kind of company, and there may be some downsides.

To oversimplify, the smaller the company, the less likely these kinds of reviews/evaluations are going to be. Pensions, bonuses, etc. are also less likely, at least in my own personal experience. I went from JnJ to a small privately held company and took a big hit in my compensation but was quite happy to do it.

 

[RobbieB]

This is true. In the 18 years I worked at my (40 employee) micro-corp I never once had a performance review or gave one. Let alone the "ranking" stuff.

 

[38Chevy454]

There is a bell curve of performance, the difficulty becomes when a fixed percentage is forced onto it. Especially funny when your recruiting folks and other company propaganda states you only hire the best and brightest. So if that is true, how does forced percentages work out when supposedly the workforce is all above avg?

I worked at GE under Jack Welch's time. It sucked. I have no respect for the man as an employee. He may have been good for stockholders, but not for the employees. Glad to be out of there, but I will gladly take my very meager 5 years worth of pension when eligible!

 

[ProspectiveBum]

This is true. In the 18 years I worked at my (40 employee) micro-corp I never once had a performance review or gave one. Let alone the "ranking" stuff.

Did you get annual COL or merit increases? The only companies I've worked for that didn't do annual reviews, also didn't give annual raises.

 

[Just_Steve]

At the state agency I w*rked at the reviews were just a box checking exercise. They had stopped discretionary raises many years ago and COL raises were few, as matter of fact we had a wage freeze for 6 of my last 7 years in the management titles.
Our union reports got their raises so needless to say most junior and mid managers did just enough to not get written up. Why do more? Pretty much I only cared about the safety of my employees and putting safe vehicles on the street everyday.
Time and attendance? Didn't care. Productivity? Didn't care.

 

[RobbieB]

Oh yeah, raises and bonuses all the time except during the last recession and even then we didn't fire anyone just skipped profit sharing in the 401K for a year.

Good company, that's why I was there for 18 years -

 

[athena53]

There is a bell curve of performance, the difficulty becomes when a fixed percentage is forced onto it. Especially funny when your recruiting folks and other company propaganda states you only hire the best and brightest. So if that is true, how does forced percentages work out when supposedly the workforce is all above avg?

I worked at GE under Jack Welch's time. It sucked. I have no respect for the man as an employee. He may have been good for stockholders, but not for the employees. Glad to be out of there, but I will gladly take my very meager 5 years worth of pension when eligible!

Yep- I get $933/month, which started at age 60 with no option to postpone it.

And I agree on the "best and brightest" observation. Even if a few people don't work out, a little ranking and yanking can leave you with a team of high performers (each with different strengths and weaknesses). Now you're done cutting fat and have to cut muscle.

 

[bssc]

My wife worked at GE too and, because of forced ranking, her manager (who was incompetent) would come up with some excuse to not give her a good ranking so he could save those for his favorites. She doesn't miss it.

My MegaCorp was the same way with people in our group sabotaging others in the group to get good rankings.

 

[target2019]

Did you get annual COL or merit increases? The only companies I've worked for that didn't do annual reviews, also didn't give annual raises.

After megacorp release, I was invited in by a much smaller rival contractor, which was employee-owned. Mega had 100,000+ employees, while minicorp had 500+.

I've been through one year-end review at minicorp. It was very simple to do, as I had practice with the process. Many younger employees struggled with the self-review, just as I had in the beginning with megacorp. It was not too hard to pump up what little I had done in 3-4 months.

The company rules specified that I had not been there long enough to get a raise, so I really expected nothing. Manager went to another company. New manager was pressing me early on about more responsibility, and I was honest with him. Said I was looking for less, that I was not on a career path, just wanted to perform a job. Customer feedback was all positive.

One day I got a call from manager, who was in weekly meeting with executives. He asked me if I got a review or raise. I said no, explained what I knew, and I had submitted self-review. He said that something was wrong, and put me in for a raise. Later got 3%, which was more than all raises at megacorp, save one.

Not related, but minicorp missed my instruction to raise contribution enough to get the entire yearly match in just 3 months at year's end. I wrote to benefits admin, and he said I had actually done things correctly, but they missed the instruction. I received the entire match in my account, without any additional contributions on my part.

In this one case, there is significant difference in how raises are given out. I don't think ranking comes into play as much as with larger companies. For those who are truly bottom quintile, they wash out early. The workforce is also much younger, and competition exists for labor, from rivals.