Comments on: Where Jack Welch Got It Wrong – The Mandatory, Annual Low-Performer Cut http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/where-jack-welch-got-it-wrong-the-mandatory-annual-low-performer-cut Equipping Managers via Requisite Organization Systems Design. Talent Management, Leadership, Organization Design. Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:30:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: p.u. http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/where-jack-welch-got-it-wrong-the-mandatory-annual-low-performer-cut/comment-page-1#comment-4350 p.u. Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:30:40 +0000 http://69.89.31.143/~organja8/missionmindedmanagement/?p=212#comment-4350 I am amazed that there are a few who still refer to fellow human beings as deadwood, and a few who glorify today's managers comparing them to the generals of Roman / middle ages, and a few others who feel they are doing the 10% a favor by letting them out into a environment best suited to them. Sheesh !! Some expert comments even suggest this is a tool to motivate the top 90% - gimme a break !! your top 90% will only be motivated to jump ship at the first available opportunity to get as far as possible from this madness. If there is 10% deadwood in your team, whose fault is it ?? It is your failure as a recruiter, your failure as a mentor and your failure as a motivator. So shouldn't you let go of yourself first ?? The head of Toyota did so once. But no, all that cold yet bold logic perhaps doesn't apply to you. And Jack Welch, who let go of so many folks, naturally is the biggest loser of them all...save for that six sigma !! Being at the receiving end of such logic, I have observed many organizations end up with ruthless, cold blooded, criminals in the top ranks, with those organizations eventually fading to obscurity. Those criminals then move on to other organizations to work their magic !! It is almost like "Barbarians at the gate" repeating itself even today. I am amazed that there are a few who still refer to fellow human beings as deadwood, and a few who glorify today’s managers comparing them to the generals of Roman / middle ages, and a few others who feel they are doing the 10% a favor by letting them out into a environment best suited to them. Sheesh !! Some expert comments even suggest this is a tool to motivate the top 90% – gimme a break !! your top 90% will only be motivated to jump ship at the first available opportunity to get as far as possible from this madness. If there is 10% deadwood in your team, whose fault is it ?? It is your failure as a recruiter, your failure as a mentor and your failure as a motivator. So shouldn’t you let go of yourself first ?? The head of Toyota did so once. But no, all that cold yet bold logic perhaps doesn’t apply to you. And Jack Welch, who let go of so many folks, naturally is the biggest loser of them all…save for that six sigma !! Being at the receiving end of such logic, I have observed many organizations end up with ruthless, cold blooded, criminals in the top ranks, with those organizations eventually fading to obscurity. Those criminals then move on to other organizations to work their magic !! It is almost like “Barbarians at the gate” repeating itself even today.

]]> By: Mike Lemke http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/where-jack-welch-got-it-wrong-the-mandatory-annual-low-performer-cut/comment-page-1#comment-4339 Mike Lemke Sat, 22 Oct 2011 03:34:32 +0000 http://69.89.31.143/~organja8/missionmindedmanagement/?p=212#comment-4339 Even if a good manager hires all good people, when it comes time to cut the 10%, they will let go of their lowest performing 10%. While they may well be good people, they are not the best people. It's common sense. Let them go to a company where they fit in better, and let the people that thrive in this environment stay - your best performing 90%. Even if a good manager hires all good people, when it comes time to cut the 10%, they will let go of their lowest performing 10%. While they may well be good people, they are not the best people.

It’s common sense.

Let them go to a company where they fit in better, and let the people that thrive in this environment stay – your best performing 90%.

]]> By: John http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/where-jack-welch-got-it-wrong-the-mandatory-annual-low-performer-cut/comment-page-1#comment-4310 John Tue, 02 Aug 2011 15:27:27 +0000 http://69.89.31.143/~organja8/missionmindedmanagement/?p=212#comment-4310 I find the process is used subjectively, to weed out those they don't want, not necessarily the low performer. I've seen it on several occasions. People being graded on things that are not in their yearly goals. I've seen teams (departments) decimated so much that all remaining have to work much overtime just to do the same amount of work that use to be done, and management takes pride in it (we do more work with less), simply to try to not be the next one out the door. It is a process that treats the employees as livestock. I find the process is used subjectively, to weed out those they don’t want, not necessarily the low performer. I’ve seen it on several occasions. People being graded on things that are not in their yearly goals.

I’ve seen teams (departments) decimated so much that all remaining have to work much overtime just to do the same amount of work that use to be done, and management takes pride in it (we do more work with less), simply to try to not be the next one out the door.

It is a process that treats the employees as livestock.

]]> By: Michelle Malay Carter http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/where-jack-welch-got-it-wrong-the-mandatory-annual-low-performer-cut/comment-page-1#comment-1661 Michelle Malay Carter Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:59:27 +0000 http://69.89.31.143/~organja8/missionmindedmanagement/?p=212#comment-1661 Hi rao vs, Thanks for stopping by. We're in agreement until the last line of your commet. I'm all for removing or reassigning dead wood. Yes, it is a managerial leadership accountability to deal with nonperformers. What I am against is the arbitrariness of this 10% process. Again, you are punishing the managers who hire well and do not "carry" non performers, as they still have to cut people. And in this case, it would be good people. How do you think that impacts high performers? Michelle Hi rao vs,

Thanks for stopping by. We’re in agreement until the last line of your commet. I’m all for removing or reassigning dead wood. Yes, it is a managerial leadership accountability to deal with nonperformers.

What I am against is the arbitrariness of this 10% process. Again, you are punishing the managers who hire well and do not “carry” non performers, as they still have to cut people. And in this case, it would be good people. How do you think that impacts high performers?

Michelle

]]> By: rao vs http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/where-jack-welch-got-it-wrong-the-mandatory-annual-low-performer-cut/comment-page-1#comment-1609 rao vs Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:51:10 +0000 http://69.89.31.143/~organja8/missionmindedmanagement/?p=212#comment-1609 hi , what Jack did is a fairly normal ( bell curve approach). what is wrong in 20-70-10. Its a common phenomena to find low performers in any team /group. unless u identify and remove the deadwood ,how elsev will you motivate high performers. The bar has to be raised year after year , and those who cannot perform has to go. We are in business and we have to mean business. We can not tie the horses and donkeys to the same stable . The prescription of 10% seems to be the contraversy. But be aware , if you donot prescribe , tendency for many leader/manager is to evaluate every one in topline. So at the end of the day the good performers will leave if low performers are tolerated. In an all well situation , we have genrosities over flowing . Fine then in a downturn situation what will you do ? can you have luxury of carrying the deadwood. It is better to prescribe the lowest rated 10% to be sacrificed , if you have to retain the 90% performers . hi ,
what Jack did is a fairly normal ( bell curve approach). what is wrong in 20-70-10. Its a common phenomena to find low performers in any team /group. unless u identify and remove the deadwood ,how elsev will you motivate high performers. The bar has to be raised year after year , and those who cannot perform has to go. We are in business and we have to mean business. We can not tie the horses and donkeys to the same stable . The prescription of 10% seems to be the contraversy. But be aware , if you donot prescribe , tendency for many leader/manager is to evaluate every one in topline. So at the end of the day the good performers will leave if low performers are tolerated.
In an all well situation , we have genrosities over flowing . Fine then in a downturn situation what will you do ? can you have luxury of carrying the deadwood. It is better to prescribe the lowest rated 10% to be sacrificed , if you have to retain the 90% performers .

]]> By: When is Fraud OK? Ask HR | Mission Minded Management http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/where-jack-welch-got-it-wrong-the-mandatory-annual-low-performer-cut/comment-page-1#comment-1456 When is Fraud OK? Ask HR | Mission Minded Management Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:10:16 +0000 http://69.89.31.143/~organja8/missionmindedmanagement/?p=212#comment-1456 [...] what values does this telegraph?? A while back, I did this with Jack Welch’s practice of hacking the bottom ranked 10% of GE employees,?and it is one of my most visited [...] [...] what values does this telegraph?? A while back, I did this with Jack Welch’s practice of hacking the bottom ranked 10% of GE employees,?and it is one of my most visited [...]

]]> By: Michelle Malay Carter http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/where-jack-welch-got-it-wrong-the-mandatory-annual-low-performer-cut/comment-page-1#comment-380 Michelle Malay Carter Sun, 11 May 2008 12:06:10 +0000 http://69.89.31.143/~organja8/missionmindedmanagement/?p=212#comment-380 Hi Jazza, Thanks for stopping by. I agree. I am by no means saying that organizations should not address underperforming employees by reassigning or removing them. I am against this particular unfair methodology for doing so. Thanks for the comment. Regards, Michelle Hi Jazza,

Thanks for stopping by. I agree. I am by no means saying that organizations should not address underperforming employees by reassigning or removing them. I am against this particular unfair methodology for doing so. Thanks for the comment.

Regards,

Michelle

]]> By: Jazza Hartey http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/where-jack-welch-got-it-wrong-the-mandatory-annual-low-performer-cut/comment-page-1#comment-379 Jazza Hartey Sun, 11 May 2008 08:14:05 +0000 http://69.89.31.143/~organja8/missionmindedmanagement/?p=212#comment-379 I agree that Jack Welch's 'decimation' approach is controversial but there is some value in it. I do not agree with his setting up of mandatory ratios of culling people every year. Obviously the continual and regular culling of the bottom 10% of performers will signal distrust and force employees to set up counterproductive measures. However there is value in culling non-productive and disengaged employees when you (as a manager) first enter into a low performing work environment in certain industry sectors. Coupled with setting a clear mission, communicating expectations of results and focus on positive engagement of employee concerns, the selective removal of non-productive staff at the start of a manager's term quickly communicates to the herd that change has arrived. A study of managerial paradox is useful here. Managers need to be ruthless and caring, results focussed yet have an interest in process etc etc. Great military commander's practise this ... driving troops till they drop but after a battle lavishing them with praise and material care. It is all in the timing! One point I would like to add (in the context of the roman army's use of decimation) is that it was purely random and also regardless of rank. However in today business context, the random methodology should be replaced by a productivity measure, yet the removal of poorly productive staff should still occur regardless of rank...hence it should also include removal of middle and senior managers ... leaders are essentially responsible just as much as the disengaged employees. I agree that Jack Welch’s ‘decimation’ approach is controversial but there is some value in it. I do not agree with his setting up of mandatory ratios of culling people every year. Obviously the continual and regular culling of the bottom 10% of performers will signal distrust and force employees to set up counterproductive measures. However there is value in culling non-productive and disengaged employees when you (as a manager) first enter into a low performing work environment in certain industry sectors. Coupled with setting a clear mission, communicating expectations of results and focus on positive engagement of employee concerns, the selective removal of non-productive staff at the start of a manager’s term quickly communicates to the herd that change has arrived. A study of managerial paradox is useful here. Managers need to be ruthless and caring, results focussed yet have an interest in process etc etc. Great military commander’s practise this … driving troops till they drop but after a battle lavishing them with praise and material care. It is all in the timing! One point I would like to add (in the context of the roman army’s use of decimation) is that it was purely random and also regardless of rank. However in today business context, the random methodology should be replaced by a productivity measure, yet the removal of poorly productive staff should still occur regardless of rank…hence it should also include removal of middle and senior managers … leaders are essentially responsible just as much as the disengaged employees.

]]> By: Michelle Malay Carter http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/where-jack-welch-got-it-wrong-the-mandatory-annual-low-performer-cut/comment-page-1#comment-332 Michelle Malay Carter Thu, 01 May 2008 01:31:21 +0000 http://69.89.31.143/~organja8/missionmindedmanagement/?p=212#comment-332 Hi Shadrach, Thanks for the comment. I see you feel strongly about this issue as well. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Regards, Michelle Hi Shadrach,

Thanks for the comment. I see you feel strongly about this issue as well. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Regards,

Michelle

]]> By: Shadrach http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/where-jack-welch-got-it-wrong-the-mandatory-annual-low-performer-cut/comment-page-1#comment-330 Shadrach Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:59:16 +0000 http://69.89.31.143/~organja8/missionmindedmanagement/?p=212#comment-330 Welch's method of cutting 10% of the workforce is not a "defensive" approach to low performance. In fact, it's an entirely "offensive" maneuver, aimed at motivating the other 90%. While Welch may not have stated as such, the historical precedent is to the Roman army's practice of "decimation" -- a much more despicable means of enforcing discipline by killing one in ten men in each cohort. (Hence the modern meaning of the word.) Welch believes in only keeping around "A"-grade performers, and thus, decimating his own troops is one of the ways he ensures employees stay competitive. Granted, this may be a better idea at a multi-national conglomerate like GE than at a mom-and-pop boutique -- but the notion of having continual employee turn-over shouldn't be thought of as demoralizing. It's an incentive to fight complacency and an opportunity to find and develop new talent. As a manager, you can be all touchy-feely and hope that every employee just needs a bit of a pep talk; this is fine in the non-profit or the public sector, where competition is pretty much meaningless and doing the exact same thing with the exact same people every day is perfectly acceptable. But in the business world, if you aren't moving upwards, constantly improving, then you're always in danger of crashing-- being in the bottom 10% (for whatever reason) means you're ballast, and are better off being cut loose, for both your sake, and the organization's. Welch’s method of cutting 10% of the workforce is not a “defensive” approach to low performance. In fact, it’s an entirely “offensive” maneuver, aimed at motivating the other 90%. While Welch may not have stated as such, the historical precedent is to the Roman army’s practice of “decimation” — a much more despicable means of enforcing discipline by killing one in ten men in each cohort. (Hence the modern meaning of the word.)

Welch believes in only keeping around “A”-grade performers, and thus, decimating his own troops is one of the ways he ensures employees stay competitive.

Granted, this may be a better idea at a multi-national conglomerate like GE than at a mom-and-pop boutique — but the notion of having continual employee turn-over shouldn’t be thought of as demoralizing. It’s an incentive to fight complacency and an opportunity to find and develop new talent.

As a manager, you can be all touchy-feely and hope that every employee just needs a bit of a pep talk; this is fine in the non-profit or the public sector, where competition is pretty much meaningless and doing the exact same thing with the exact same people every day is perfectly acceptable. But in the business world, if you aren’t moving upwards, constantly improving, then you’re always in danger of crashing– being in the bottom 10% (for whatever reason) means you’re ballast, and are better off being cut loose, for both your sake, and the organization’s.

]]>