![]() So that my folks know that at least from my level down, there's a clear set of tradeoffs and an effort is spent to seriously consider the ratings. So there's always an art to being clear without being so detailed that you are getting into the sausage making.Īt some level, I get a certain amount of traction when I can describe the part of the process that I own. Being frank about the relative performance of the employees is the only way that managers can calibrate ratings - and no matter how you do it, that process isn't pretty. Usually there will be a place where the doors are closed and what gets said in the room stays in the room. I usually get a lot of traction if I can explain something of the process and also of the criteria. "Fair" is often subjective, but I see a lot more acceptance when it's consistent - no matter how ridiculous. Working in a tough (but not slimy) regimeĪny system, no matter how brutal, will function better for people if they see the rules as clear and consistently applied. When you don't respect yourself for the decisions you had to make, find a better company. It's one thing to be tough or demanding, it's another to feel that you are unfair. The point of asking the question is - at some level, if you are like most decent managers, you'll have trouble representing the values of a management culture that you view as slimy. A company like this may hold managers' feet to the flames for a few years but may back off when performance has measurably improved, and it may be willing to exempt teams or areas that are seen as already high-performing. In others, the forced stack ranking may well be a push to avoid a systemic nice-ness problem where for years the company has not held people accountable for self-improvement, and so the company has developed a culture of tolerating low performance that should be changed. And so it becomes more about finding the people to put on performance plans and less about thinking "is this team performing to it's expectations?" In the worst, stack ranking can become a witch hunt, no matter what the manager tries to do. With that said, I have seen some corporate cultures that were slimier than others about it. No one likes being forced into a strict career defining paradigm that doesn't take into account any context of the people, the team, the work, or any other practical information. I doubt there are any lovers of stack ranking out there. Wow, I left this one, figuring by now someone may have a better idea that I did and I was really looking forward to reading that response. I am very curious to know from experienced leaders how they tackled the negative side-effects of stack-ranking and managed to keep employee morale from sinking like a stone? Sure, I can vibe well with a number of employees but at the end of the day, I'm not the guy deciding their paycheck. Then A4's position within A's team is determined, subject to how A1, A2, A3 fared when compared across their peers in teams B, C and D. This would ensure a range of scores - ranging from 30/100 to 90/100 maybe.Īnother idea I can think of is instead of a relatively rating A's reportees A1, A2, A3 and A4 (where A1 is an experienced member and A4 is a relatively new member), we compare A4 with B4, C4 and D4(all are similarly experienced) while A1 is compared with B1, C1 and D1 (all similarly experienced). Volunteering/Evangelism/Hackathons/Public Speaking.To ensure that the very best get top rating, I am thinking the only way to eliminate subjective and non-tangible factors is to have a well-defined scoring system that gives us reasonable basis as to why John Smith is ranked ahead of Jack Doe.įor example, each employee's score will be cumulative based on: This means out of the 30 people, maybe 5-6 people will rank top of the stack while the rest will receive very average reviews. The unfortunate thing is we have the Stack Ranking system. ![]() I definitely plan to spend invest time guiding every single member of the team and take them to the next level. I am a very people-centered manager with great mentoring skills, zero-tolerance for politics and excited about the opportunity. We might hire more folks so I might end up having 40 folks under me. ![]() So essentially I oversee 30 people and will be responsible for their annual performance review. I have 5 people under me, each of whom have 6 people under them. In my new assignment, I am a technical manager for a large team. ![]() I am a lead programmer and moved jobs recently. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |