![]() |
|
|
| |
|
||||
Rank-based employment evaluationThe concept of a "vitality curve" has been used to justify the "rank-and-yank" system of management, whereby 10 percent of workers are fired at each evaluation. Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric, used a "vitality curve" model in an attempt to justify his "rank-and-yank" practices. Jack Welch's vitality model has been described as a "20-70-10" system. The "top 20" percent of the work force is most productive, and 70% (the "vital 70") work adequately. The other 10 percent ("bottom 10") are nonproducers and should be fired. Rank-and-yank ideologues 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. Straight from the GutIn Straight from the Gut, Welch says that he asked "each of the GE's businesses to rank all of their top executives". Specifically (in accordance with the 20-70-10 model) the top executives were divided into "A", "B", and "C" players. Welch admitted that the judgments were "not always precise". "A" players"A" players, Welch claimed, are
"B" playersThe vital "B" players may not be visionary or the most driven, but are "vital" because they make up the majority of the group. "C" players"C" players are nonproducers. They are likely to "enervate" rather than "energize", according to Welch's model. Procrastination is a common trait of "C" players, as well as failure to deliver on promises. These designations apply not only to workers at the bottom levels, but also managers. Managers unable to recognize "C" players will often perform as "C" players themselves. ConsequencesWelch advises firing "C" players, while encouraging "A" players with rewards such as promotions, bonuses, and stock options. Why "rank and yank" failsThe inherent flaw in the 20-70-10 model is that it fails to reflect actual human behavior. Among randomly selected people, assigned to a task, such a model may be accurate. However, at each iteration, the average quality of employees will increase, making for more "A" players and fewer "C" players. Eventually, the "C" players comprise (at general agreement) less than 10 percent of the workforce; they may all be gone. At this point, managers will staunchly object to a mandate that they recommend 10% of their subordinates for termination. Once rank-and-yank expels all the weak employees, further iterations will not improve average workforce quality, but instead result in office politics that will ultimately reduce productivity, damage communication and interoffice relations, and encourage cheating. Rank-based performance evaluations (in education and employment) invariantly foster cutthroat and unethical behavior. Such behavior resulted when Enron implemented a rank-based system, and this brought the company to its downfall. A further fallacy of the "rank and yank" ideology is that, applied to small groups, it fails. The law of small numbers dictates that on small teams, actual distributions will deviate from any "vitality curve" model. See alsoExternal linksArticles
Video
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright 2008 WordIQ.com - Privacy Policy
::
Terms of Use
:: Contact Us
:: About Us This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Vitality curve". |