Forced Ranking: The Bell Curve Was Installed, Not Discovered | AA272

Jack Welch called firing the bottom 10 percent of people every year. The kindest form of management. , Om, you think had point? If that's being kind, I don't know. do you share his viewpoint that that every manager would just lazily rate that 99 percent the people with five stars exceeds expectations. And then because everyone's got the five golden stars that number is now meaningless to management And you do, first of all, congratulations. You just discovered Campbell's law. The more a] quantitative social indicator is used for high stakes decisions, the more subject it is to corruption and the more it distorts the social process, it was meant to monitor first place. Yes. that's exactly why GE forced this curve, forced ranking. know, know else ran it. Om, know else. Enron, your favorite people. Ron Enron ran it. That's That's right. Microsoft ran it for decade and every single employee that was interviewed by Vanity Fair said was most destructive thing it was most destructive thing building. And that was the Steve Ballmer of Microsoft. That was saying something. Oh boy. welcome back to Arguing Agilene. This is your first time. Welcome. I'm your host product manager Brian Orlando and this my co -host enterprise business agility leader and baron of the bell curve, Mr. Barron, I need hat You've been baron lot. I'm just I know why. It's a little weird. So if enforcing a totally manufactured bell curve is a bad answer to real question, let's talk about the problem. OK, three things jump out me. OK, let's So three things jumping me. Number one, where it actually came from. which is not what people might think. Like she did not invent this [UH] regardless what the Jack Welch Management Institute or whatever tells people. Do they sell down? I don't know. Anyway, move on quickly. where actually came from, which is it wasn't just GE. And then why math underneath is broken. Those are those one thing. Believe not. Even though said there are three things. That's one thing. It's like compound sentence. One one one C. That's think my fourth grade English teacher really hated me. think because never got good anyway. We're sharing childhood traumas podcast today. number two, what Microsoft Enron afford and maybe even your company paid for it or will pay for it. Keep that resume updated and that legal documentation. And then the part that I'm excited get to, of course, is the last part. Of course, is the four different jobs that this ridiculous framework. mean, mean totally legitimate framework used by very large companies the world over not necessarily a good thing for every company. Maybe it was secretly doing so. Yeah. What places each one. we're talk about that. So somebodies rebuilding this [UH] companies all around world right now, which I'm sure it's happening or like trying sell you on it over Internet like training program something by my book. Are there Jack Welch books for sale of like. Well, he's written few. So I'm pretty sure. Yeah, we should get Jack Welch book I have some spare change that can find in my sofa. I will buy Jack Welch. Oh, I thought were to get it via like a extra legal means. We don't do that on this broadcast. How dare we would never [UM] So somebody rebuilding this at your company or trying to sell it you. And then I think if someone's trying rebuild a company or someone trying sell you, think fair question is where did this come from in first place. force ranking thing. Right. in the research this podcast, as far can tell [UH] the story is in World War Two, the army .S. Army had a leniency crisis which was that they asked officers to rate people under their command. And then officers, of course, wrote, know, five stars for everybody at [UH] top marks for everyone all along board. And[UM] you know, Army brass was course not too happy with that course because they have, know, they have reports do have bureaucracy needs. They have boxes need ticked along with everyone else. Right? Right [UM] So apparently the top down fix was forced choice, which says, X percentage of your people have be, this number and X percentage have the, know, the top 10 experts have to be bottom 10. And that's basically was a blunt instrument for otherwise not going and training whole force who is, know, out living in Germany wherever. Yeah. Middle World War Two. So that's that's where came from. So 80 years later, here we are using a clerical patch created for lazy raters to decide who loses their jobs [UH] And oh, by way, the curve that produces was never demonstrated. was never like proven statistically relevant for anything in workplace. It's just like copy paste it for reasons Copy paste it to justify the churn. Maybe that just needs to happen. You know. that's that's the reasons. But [UH] since your grand podcast, we're have a steel man, [UH] I think steelman points here are they're pretty good. don't know. know can take any sides but I might try. OK. Oh, somebody has be bottom. come performance time. Someone's be bottom. OK like at least the curve is honest in that like not everyone is considered a high performer. You'd like that I threw is considered there. like. Yeah, just little bit that. Yes, I saw that [UH] curve helps you justify your actions. Right? can say we measured everybody the bottom 10 percent are going cut it. So we just have get those people. like how went. And then we can then repeat periodically thereafter. Right? like how went straight that one is like I have a behavior like to justify. How can I use this process? Yeah, that's exactly is. Took, took maternity leave this quarter by a performer. How dare you take vacation this cycle? How dare you? Yeah, didn't return office. How dare you was having surgery. Didn't take phone call. Yeah[UH] you know, the funny thing about what you just did was it's 100 percent true. Legally speaking you know, we can't prove it, but it's 100 percent true. there would be academic here says you know, for eliminating the lower 10 percent of people, people, you know, the managers don't work for or managers think that they're underperforming just by right of it being air covered to drop the underperforming people like you will raise your workforce potential by getting rid those people. You know, even though it's not like completely fair and is a system for like, know, air cover for that kind stuff. yes, stuff slips through the cracks, but like this would academics like. Yeah. And as as with most academic stands. Right. This also has no basis to show that it actually works because you've replace people. You get the bottom 10 percent. You replace them there's no guarantee that the incoming batch is better in any way unless you're undertaking to do something differently. Right? Like, oh, we trained last batch. We're train these people better if you're doing that. But who does We're not train people. so the academic for me is still academic in lowercase. A first choice does raise. Does raise word for percentage? Where's the proof of that? We don't have proof of that. All does is it keeps the churn going to justify things. Right? I kind like practitioner here[UH] you can tell who carries team. And think this is kind of there's two parts to this. Right? Why don't take face value? tell carries team. They're never the in bottom 10 percent. And look at the [UM] well, that's not true. But I know, I know. I agree. The justification for it. I agree. agree practitioner on this one actually Yeah, everyone can tell you should be able tell. Right So there's little cynical angle to this as well. Right. Which is people who carry the team always find way to kind of float above the 10 percent[UH] using some means. Listen, I'm so torn because I both agree with you and agree with the practitioner screen. But both you are not saying thing that I was thinking when I saw third perspective. We had discussion at networking event recently [UH] Ryan was talking about people that love do PR. with somebody who really loves PRS and they're good at it. They love do it and they're good at it. And like when PR goes in, it's like just just the[UH] you're on team workflow of the PR is like that work is the closest being done. So like you should stop what you're doing. Jump on PRS. If you're stop what you're doing at all, you definitely should stop doing when PR goes in. Yeah, because that's where it's like closest being done. Anyway my mental coloring this one is you can tell who carries team and you're saying, everyone can tell carries team and that person because everyone perceives that current team is stay of bottom 10 percent. The interesting part from my career is that doesn't necessarily mean that person is in the top 10 percent. Oh, which is extra salty. mean all salt bae. They're just above the bottom 10 which is point was making which is messed up because those people usually people that everyone loves to work with and they're usually people that if they miss day, we're not moving cards the board whatever, But this system does not mean that they're be in the time 15 percent or whatever numbers are. They won't the top tier we're saying. Correct. agree [UH] think they're just fine. So yes, is true. is messed up. That's tragedy like a Bee Gees style tragedy. It is tragedy if you consider them against like who are those people in the top tier And you look those, know what Right. Why is this guy or this gal not the top 10 percent or 15 percent top tier? you can definitely tell who carries team though. Coming back the practitioner's point. Right? So let's let's have some better points[UH] I'm depressed. here [UM] Yeah. Forced. And here's my first point that wrote. Forced choice was a personal or individual solution to a systemic problem. So the army came out. Forget Jack Welch for second. It's like I know, know, know Jack Wells his a ego just deflated like Hindenburg right nowadays. It's like forget Jack Welch that blow up the the maybe the[UH] allegedly allegedly the forced choice is basically saying like you have blame people for where they are on the system. You know, I told only have two this and three of that. And you know, mean [UH] I gave number. So, so it's a individual problem for systemic issue. This is systemic issue is before send these people out to be basically field supervisors, officers, We didn't come up with good system for them to rank people. Yeah, you know what it? it on like combat wins? Is it on teamwork? it on, you know, mean Dream Work. What is What is it? And I like can give military pass on lot things because the military like it's a bunch 20 years It's bunch 20 year olds like get out my office. you doing? yeah, get here, kid. know mean So on hand, pass. On other hand, like I can't give these the MBA executive folks a pass because you should know better. Right? know, you should know better. You shouldn't. know, you should know statistics. mean, maybe not. Maybe they went to business school, so they maybe they drank that day or had hangover. don't know. [UH] you should know better. know, there's no science that backs stuff. Right? And bell curve doesn't represent what they're claiming represents that bell curve where like the lower 20s here and then goes up for 60 middle and the higher 20s over here. Like that's not the regular distribution of human potential and performance. It doesn't look like that all. It doesn't. But also you're trying put sense into this [UH] Oh right. You know that. Yeah. That doesn't go well. Usually the top tier usually and what people try and do. The, you know, the management. Yeah, they will try slot people that they like the Yes-men to what they say. Those kinds people up there regardless of performance And that's what's unfair about those that end up in the modern tier is they make their performance maybe adequate to good may no be excellent, but they have potential. Right? So instead harnessing that nurturing that, what we're doing is we're simply culling the crowd And that's, exactlyexactly what what happens sadly. So that's my other point is any system that decides the shape the answer before you start talking people or considering any people like it's obviously you didn't build that system for people. You didn't build system help people like So it yourself. Yeah. What we doing? Right And then we consult the authority on issue, we to consult Deming, then we're ask hey, you're you're not even considering the outliers in the system because because Deming tell you ignore everything inside of stable system and then only look the outliers. Because if you, if we go back the Deming episode, which I'll never remember. if back to, I think it was Arguing Agile 199 was Deming If you look that, think Deming said that most variation belongs the system. I think 94 percent is the system and only management could change system. And then the only[UH] the other six percent is other people. Basically the people. Yeah. Yeah. Stark contrast to what's actually happening with this model that we're discussing here. Yeah. mean that assumes have stable system. So you know if have management meddling and bunch other variables, yes, can have a non stable system. And then who knows what's happening. Right? So there's take away here, stop there is takeaway here and it's overly complicated. So bear with second. So as stop asking whether the curve is fair and also stop asking how you move the rating because there's no good answers here. OK, you start asking what, problem that this system was built to solve and whether you even had that problem your organization. Because you're ranking, know, oh, 20 people got to be low performance and then 15 percent people got to be high performance or we only have you know, another way I've seen is you have six employees and you have 12 percent raises to give out among those six employees. So some people get one percent some people[UH] I've seen that in organizations too. Yeah, basically this. Yeah, you know, hey, does our system correct the people rating like on like the year interviews. Does it correct the raters or is it punishing workers? Which one doing And then was distribution decided before we talked people, which is one of things. And then know, who's success are we find this, know, who are we borrowing? what gosh, what's the what's What's called? It's not appeal to authority. It's it's What's called? Unearned. There's a, there's a fallacy here where just because big name did it, it must yeah. Right. Right. Like big name, like big name companies like Google. They don't make mistakes. Obviously, know obviously they make any mistakes. But just because big name did it like now that we're ride that success and like, well, they did it. of course we got to do [UH] You're emulating success or brand success anyway. Who, what company borrowing this from? You know what Spotify model we copy pasting. And dropping into organization [UH] that'd be other. There's three takeaways there. It's a great takeaways. So after listening to this discussion, does your company have a word for this? Like it is calibration? Is it talent review? end of year reviews drop the exact phrase that your org uses in the comments, I want build glossary. That's what I'm saying today for hearing from while you're there. By way, folks, don't forget to like subscribe. Oh, that's right. So you know, I think this doesn't get the exposure it deserves because the bad math is a boring problem. think I mean also like design. Yeah. Too. So the more interesting thing is to watch what people start doing the second they understand they're being ranked against each other and what that unnatural competition costs Another Deming thing for you. They're just Deming just sprinkled all through this podcast. if the shape is a counterfeit in the variation is the system and not people. Then next question I have Om, is what happens to those people? Yeah. happens with the building full people in a forced ranking system, there are two ways to move up. You're to, you're not like either one. There only two ways move up Om. All the first one is the hard one is you just get better, much better. And the second one is the easier one, which is you just make people that are around look worse. Oh geez. Yes. You know ran this experiment Om? Microsoft ran this experiment. They ran it for a decade and the outcome was that their best engineers[UH] actively refused to work with each other because being stuck team of rock stars. All right. Guarantees that someone needs be rated as needs improvement. So oh yeah, you really don't want team full of prima donnas. guess they found that out. You know I mean other thing that we like talk about podcasts in the agile world is like you want people to work together on team. You want them bring their authentic self to the team. You want them to swarm on problems, to knock down, block, to, to, to point out blockers soon as they come up and then want them to own the sprint goal to truly like take ownership of sprint goal. Yeah. All this like team stuff. And then when comes their yearly review, now you're to rate them again individually against each other. Yeah, not just individually but against other. Yeah, exactly. so and in that, in that environment, helping your teammate is a direct like it's in direct conflict of what your goal is to get better score or whatever. know, whatever is. Above bottom band. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So that's that's that's this category. Microsoft ran So there was a was a Microsoft. Microsoft's lost decade was article in Vanity Fair in August 2012 that talked about forced ranking. That's this came from. That everybody hated forced ranking But if you, if you want to do little late reading about force ranking, you read about how Ford settled two class action lawsuits for 10 .5 million dollars for over this, know, forced ranking and unfair practices force ranking. long story short, I'm into all the there's reason go on all these studies. You read them yourself. Let know comments you think about Microsoft added Stack Microsoft ended their fourth ranking in November of 2013. Don't ask me to line up when Balmer left or when golden era began yeah. Don't ask me because I don't know. But know what, it might be worth it might be worth correlating. might be worth just asking like when did Steve Ballmer buy the Clippers? No, don't think he did buy the Clippers. Oh no. Probably after retired February 4th 2014 he was replaced by Satya Nadella. They stopped this practice in November 2013. Oh no. And just couple months later. Oh they had a regime change. That's so strange. It's almost if Balmer was already out door buying Clippers. Oh man. But you know Om, on the Argue Agile podcast is going be. There's be some arguing. There should be. And the cynic will tell you. But Om, the agile literature and like you agilists, you're, you're, you're, you're very thin on individual accountability. OK, the weak performers always blame system. OK, everyone knows team weak performer is. Why, why, why can't we just, know, call that person out get rid them or whatever, know So this. Yeah. So this actually is a good point you raise because teams will often raise the same thing. They're saying, have put up with this person? Yes It's team sport, right? Software development, whatever you're doing. mean, these are, these are not individual conquests. These team sports. If you want the other person to contribute in a better way, change the system. know, ask them what they need to excel. Right And tap into their, you know, human potential because getting rid them is the easy answer. Also the short term answer. But then you find yourself short staff. So you're replace that person with somebody else. What's the guarantee that they going be[UH] you can hire somebody has more qualifications. Perhaps that doesn't necessarily mean they're better team player. So work on the system. That's my answer. I have a slightly different answer to this one. I don't know it's I think might be. I think might be still arguing for this one, which is arguing at the agile literature thin on individual accountability and the weak performance will blame system or like the implied. The implication is that the, the agilest will blame the system and then kind kick off having hard conversation of coaching person. And I will say there's nothing stopping you from coaching the person. You should be doing that anyway. you're doing your team in order service like you're on a sports team. Right? You're not be like, hey man, how come aren't, you know, blocking and tackling the way you like? I'm getting butt kicked over here. Yeah Why you, what doing? You know, you're definitely have that conversation. You're have that conversation probably heated matter. But but but software development team is no team team. There's different. So this interesting one. We'll come back that one. But there's lot more here that want touch on especially the academics point that who wants to claim, hey, see you using Microsoft as example. They adopted this stack ranking thing. They seem be going downhill when they did it [UH] But in that weird Microsoft time period, they had strategy problem that was disguised mobile problem no. Maybe mobile problem that actually really was strategy problem that actually really was a Steve Bomber problem. And Enron like know can use Enron as example because they were committing fraud which is just like criminal activity. like those[UH] you can take that example right off table. that's was. deliberate choice. That's academical say is like. they were engaged criminal activity. So like you can't count them as know forced ranking was part that which those points that going say right before they get like yeeted at the front door like Fresh Prince of Bel Air because I mean listen pressures of forced ranking, I think led sorry because the to all this stuff. Maybe the evidence not strong, but I mean, it seems pretty direct line me. listen, evidence is there should you choose to find it. That's what I'm to say here. Right Because if especially it becomes a repeat thing like you do this get the weakest link and then you find yourself pointing at somebody else saying you are the weakest link goodbye. Goodbye. That is terrible. That terrible because you're really not improving the system as whole. What you're doing is you're simply scapegoating people. So the practitioner here, the best, the best one. say the best point for last. Somebody has accountable. OK the team did it. That's, that's, we're not performance hides. Everyone on team knows who the top performer is or who the slacker is whatever. Right? They're looking for that one nicked joke. That's That's a horrible expression. right the cynic and practitioner have ganged up in this podcast. point that out see. Why are we looking for someone blame here? Like why are not taking personal accountability of our own team? Exactly. Why aren't the team members holding each other accountable instead of, know talked this earlier little bit. You can go up thinking about just yourself or can step on other people's heads what is happening now? Are saying the person that we, the team, think is our lowest performer management sees them as the highest performer? Well, now you're getting some complications in the picture because of other reasons. Right now, now listen, now practitioner cynic have come over our side where they won't think that. They won't think way. They'll be like, no, no, Brian. no, no. You guys wrong because my workplace. It's pathological organization and the person who's weakest, we can't get rid them because management likes that person. Yeah, yeah, yeah. mean[UH] now have really complex problem. Right? Because now to illustrate to management with some evidence that this person needs be helped. I'm not saying this person needs be caught or fired. I'm saying they need they need help. So they could be management's [UH] person. doesn't really matter at that point. Take that out equation and just focus on remediating what needs remediate. I think that's the answer here you know, because it's good fighting management over it. mean, they've already decided they're not getting rid this person. That's Is cousin of the, you know, the CEO whatever or their their son or whatever. Yeah. Yeah. So don't fight that. Look at the actual deficiency there that you need to address and follow that. So sounds like you're not team player I'm not team player. Let's see there's any. Let's see there's any better points up here. Oh, they're part one part two. That's weird. So part one, don't argue causation. Like we're not even going argue causation. OK, because we're arguing about the mechanism. We're arguing about the system. Force ranking pays people to hide bad news. Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. There's this. mean, look this one. I can stand behind and say that's exactly what happens. Right? It's forcing the system is forcing people to behave certain way. Which is like said, you know, be economical with the truth [UH] from higher ups. The other interesting one about this is I think we're talk about oh no, it's the very next one. Quota quotas plus ordinary manager bias equals disparate impact. meaning it's your bias is run wild, run wild like Holcommenia. Who are you going run wild? I don't know why I'm doing Holcoman in machoman voice. That's so weird like like Ford and Goodyear like paid this. And Kinoko, know who Canoka is but Ford Goodyear paid this like that. You can the go back citations that showed earlier. You can look at the companies and you research that they got slammed this because what find is you, your manager can hide all their biases or prejudices or whatever is in these force rankings[UH] because they're being mandated. You just got to short people in these buckets. Right? your biases show up when you push these people into these buckets. And know that like people like working with people that look and sound like them. Exactly. Yeah [UH] there should word for this Latin. But I can't remember my Latin**** That's the word that is perfect Latin. this, this, this section was so chock And it was like full points. had to go point two, which is my return to form that I wanted go to earlier. But I kind held myself back, which is accountability is management job is also way feel about product management. you are the person is accountable. don't want people going back to individual members my team. how come you didn't code this that whatever? You come back me a product manager and I, I am the person blame if you're looking for someone blame or the person asked be hey, how come this not done whatever? Basically the person who becomes accountable when you have question about something. You come back to me because that's my job. It's, I don't need quota for that. And if we're in traditional organization where I'm manager and I hire people my people doing stuff. I don't need a quota for accountability That's just my job. Yeah, I couldn't agree more [UH] I just thought the Latin word by ways ussitting here. Homogenity. Oh There might have been [UH] some bleeps inserted in today's broadcast. were some edits here where we're Violence happened. Some suboptimal words were were used Listen, at end day, accountability does not need quotas. But you know, two parts to that. One is on personal level individually, you should be empowering your own self to take accountability. That's one side of it. The other side of it is, should you decide to take it? Is it even prized welcomed in your org? That's the, you know, that's system view. If system doesn't welcome that and encourage that, to do? Right? You've survive first and then hopefully you're looking to move ahead. We go right back. It's like we're almost the top the board and now just got swallowed by the longest snake on the snakes ladders board. go right back to the bottom. And now you're stepping on people saying, it's their fault. didn't tell them to this way, but they did it anyway those developers. Thatit. That's it. Listen, it's great point because I also have one here that says the cynic is describing system that makes accountability someone else's job. want to back the Senate here says agile literature is is thin on individual accountability and weak performers blame the system. They blame soul. You don't have enough individual accountability. Well so you make that someone else's job. That's, that's, that's team's job. That's Individual members of the team to step up like,[UH] So let me back up second. Like are we all adults this team? Because if have somebody who's not performing job, friend. You want ask like the first thing I would think of. Someone's not performing job. Someone's not, know, stepping up someone's not taking tickets. Someone's not contributing conversations. You want to ask that person, hey, are you doing right? You got stuff that's distracting you. What's going on? And mean, is he assuming have relationship them? Right? Yeah[UH] And you to treat them like a person because maybe need help. Maybe had something happen in their personal life. have no idea. no idea what's going on. So are we acting team? Do we care about other people or are we pathological organization like what this there's many like moving factors for for for me to not take that six point seriously say like you Agiles just want to blame the system. mean you're right because according Deming[UH] the system is responsible for 94 percent variation. So you know, read book and get my office. I got work do. Right But for the other six percent. If it truly is the other six percent that is really impacting our work. Let's take that seriously and let's do what we can to help other people you know, recover whatever need do, know. Yeah. So I mean you're talking about a minor variation that is[UH] making real impact that to point everyone notices it. So should take seriously. Yeah, indeed. Yeah, mean this where you know good agile team will figure this out very quickly [UM] through whatever know introspection retrospection whatever might be. Yeah. And then course the last point here we already brought up. already talked about which is, hey, we're putting on this framework. We're laying down framework at work we want everyone to work together. We want people help others. We swarm blockers. want, we want peer program. know, work together. And then we're laying on this thing that says like you're only judging individual performance, whatever. come on, like what kind of games is this? didn't help. It doesn't help us our day work. What this? What's going here? Who are you? How did into my house? Sorry So if there's takeaway, it is stop hunting for the weakest link. You weakest link. Goodbye. April 2001 is when came when came America. Twenty twenty twenty five year old reference right here. Start counting the times that someone chose not help because it would not count on their yearly performance goals or whatever. WIIFM, they didn't have a WIIFM there. What's it for me? You knoww, and talked about this, the person, know, that person who is, know everyone likes work with on your team who may not be in that top 15 percent, top 20 percent whatever. Like you can ask who who on your team gets asked to help other people constantly because you might find out they're not in the top 10 percent performers whatever because of whatever number games that are going on. And then does helping at your org appear in your org's ratings or yearly reviews whatever which individual metrics that applied individually come from team metrics. Because again, like I've been places that do the yearly review and none the metrics are team metrics that appear my individual. I'm like I spent literally 100 percent time working team. Yeah. And I'm not judged at all on those metrics bananas. And then what does raising an impediment? This is sort of a tangential to the last one What is raising an impediment? Like what that cost the person who raises it? feel don't ask any other questions. Just ask that last question. yeah. And if you at that one, if like the hairs on neck or whatever, arm, like if they stand up when you ask that one is oh, but keep head down, then you might will not even ask any other questions. Yeah, agree. mean, does your team feel free and safe to, you know [UH] have anyone pull that end on cord or are you to start looking them and saying, what are you doing? Yeah, Yeah. Yeah. With your life. That's we're saying. So have you ever chosen not to help a teammate because it wouldn't count for you on your yearly review. Let us know comments and use burner account. That's I'm saying that's a collaboration tax. that's, that's, That's I'm to call it collaboration. Exactly right. That's right. We're all out here paying that collaboration tax. All right Om, it's, it's time talk about the reasons like we're earth, wind, fire over here. It's about the time to talk about the reasons that force ranking keeps coming back from dead I think it's because force ranking is four different jobs at once. And because organ design is boring people or you know arcane people or whatever occult[UH] I can think other words but it's not get any better. Yeah nobody ever takes time to pull these jobs apart and think about how we actually can do this job better. So if we're saying that force ranking is specifically hostile to the way that we work in agile software development or really in teams or as good people working each other. Then why has nobody replaced it? As we're going talk about force ranking survives because it's secretly doing four separate jobs. And here's part where I just keep like going on on on to keep you watching video. No, I'm tell you four jobs. Here are. Number one, it's rationing a fixed budget like team between people. Number two is forcing managers who won't differentiate between people to differentiate. Number three is dealing with genuine non -performance in a way that have air cover to deal with it. And number four, our favorite one is producing paperwork so that your lawyers can defend you when have layoff in court. Yeah. The justification. Yeah. All legitimate means for a large organization and not single one those requires a quota or to buy Jack Welsh certification or book or whatever. So you pull each one apart and you manage to it individually, you don't need this fake bell curve thing, this construct thing. don't need that. Yeah. we've got some sources for you to investigate in your own time if you'd like to do that. the Adobe one gets reported lot. I read lot about this one. And I say I'm kind standoffish on Adobe as a business case because the 30 percent reduction in voluntary turnover. Like all these are like company reported from Adobe. Like they're not, they're like nobody ever checked Adobe. And also like Adobe has a pretty heinous reputation company as it is. I'm sure that force ranking didn't help. it in 2012 it apparently led to an when they bailed out uptick their company for, you know, less turnover stuff like that. Right we also need to say that Jee also replaced this fourth ranking when Jack Wells left G. They replaced it soon after with a PD@GE professional development. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So the point is they actually replaced those annual reviews with a continuous review process. They built an app for all their employees So that was a big thing. They were huge back in day too as an organization. Yeah. all good points. But of course, we'll all good points. There are steelman. That's That's right. Listen[UM] If you remove the curve, you remove the performance pressure. And then[UH] people just slack. That's right. People just like is, this the belief that intrinsic motivation the only, there's such thing as intrinsic motivation. This what this is. saying you've got a, you know, is cynical is very cynical especially in as always working where you're really, you're really dependent upon self-motivated individuals, right to come in and do a decent day's work So I'm not in tune with this one at all. don't even, I really don't to debate one because it's like it's like over the whole course human history, no one has ever done anything because of intrinsic motivation. one's ever tried better themselves because they enjoy getting better at things. Which such ridiculous. It's, it's I would have hard time even debating someone if they were really trying make this point You know, it's only because people got paid to, you know, make art throughout history. All, know, the Picasso's of the time all the ridiculous is crazy. It's, it's patently ridiculous. Yeah so let's just skip straight to the academic is continuous feedback outperforms annual appraisals, which is there's this is a better point. It's harder argue against say like, this is not the, the normal bell curve this is just a system of continual continuous feedback. Yeah, I saw this one here. If you think about some these smaller companies that are now using management three 0 principles and doing the, know, the 360 sort of reviews where it's not just continuous but it's also it's it's upward and downwards, left right. Everyone evaluates everyone else and not with view to ranking them but a view to saying here are the attributes against which we evaluate everyone. So there's the same attributes for everyone, you know, management all way down. And the point it would be identify where someone needs help. Right And then provide help. So that last bit important. Right? So I'm all for this continuous feedback definitely does outperform annual appraisal. think there should be some empirical evidence on this. I think the academic is is is giving this advice under the guise of continuous feedback rather than like one time year, but still with the bell curve. Oh, really? Yeah mean, don't know. Oh, who knows? knows? that's case, you're not really doing mean, like let's just cut practitioner because yeah, he's the best one this category a calibration without quotas. Like that's just rating inflation. Like if you just, you just basically this the old the practitioner saying there's something be said about like the army coming down and saying like no only give you know 10 percent your people performance rating fives, know, then everyone else is like. And then basically four becomes norm for everyone. anyone who really is slacker or had like performance issues or discipline issues whatever. They get like three. This what this way was when was military. Like very few people got five. Like maybe two three people got five. And not many got Lord w end of spectrum. normal was four. Yeah, yeah, Most people are there. So your bell curve is, you know, steep. Everyone's the middle. Right? in actuality, nobody's getting the ones like it's not Yeah. Which, which bulk, it's a barbell at that point Yes, it is. Oh, it's good thing that none these. It's good thing that these 20 and early 30 year olds [UH] know anything about statistics. That's if those kids could read, they'd be very aggravated with you. I'm just saying like there are some better points. Listen Number one, I'm point out as someone who used be professional manager, firing someone doesn't require any quotas all. OK, you really don't need anything you just barely need to breathe. Listen, I can use any evidence I want there are companies out there now. Asking there companies out there now who were full time remote companies who hired people in Covid and staffed up who now are return office who have employees who never lived anywhere near the office. Who are basically Right. looking do riff without having through excuse there companies out there now who are doing RIFs for the employees that were remote that were hired in under good faith just because they don't to be bothered to, you know figure how to do their layoffs or whatever. yeah, this is the easy It's easier. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So like that don't don, don't tell me that you know this stuff is like required to need paperwork whatever. know, you really need any excuse really look at the shed people. don't need that. Yeah, not now. Fast forwarded today, you're starting see some those companies of overextended in their investments you know, dare say, without having clear path to an ROI on it. now they're saying hey recoup the funding somehow. That's And what's the best way do that? Reduce headcount as it goes straight the bottom line. That's right the ratings and having evidence like that's a great thing about force ranking is like don't really need evidence. You just put somebody that bucket because system is telling you, got have people that bucket. OK, is the person putting that typically their management mandates. Right? We've reduce five percent, three percent, whatever it is. And then you just basically fill gaps and write to make five percent or three percent. Yeah, that's a sadly for these folks we have laws about these things like. Yeah, mean, even that doesn't stop layoffs. mean, even that is, know, the layoffs that are happening last two three years. You know, they, I see people on LinkedIn every other week that like, well, on my maternity leave and like came back the company and laid me off or whatever. You know, they called me on maternity leave, which I don't even think is like technically legal. I don't know. That shouldn't legal. they just it anyway because they don't, they don't care. know, legally speaking, they're like, can, you can sue us and maybe or maybe not get something or can just take the severance, which is like six months, you know, severance whatever. And most people be like, give me money. Sure, I'm out. most people don't go through legal process. and then not to be broken record this podcast too late. But [UH] know, Deming first. Is the person outside the system or system producing results that you're seeing here? This it. This is really whole podcast sense. Right? Is person outside the system or is the system producing this? speaking whole podcast [UH] there's some takeaways. number one, stop arguing about the curve. And never to start naming which the four jobs your company is trying to do. So remember four jobs because I'm going hit the the we're about to go the end podcast I'm show the sticky on the sticky. It's say four jobs. So one more time four jobs that that this force ranking is doing is number one. They're, rationing fixed budget. Yeah, right Number two, they're, they're forcing managers who won't differentiate to differentiate. they're, they're sort like forcing managers be accountable for they're supposed accountable for but then not punishing that manager for not being accountable for doing a normal job And then three, they're dealing with genuine nonperformers without without having actually confront and work through. And then number four, they're they're producing paperwork for the lawyers. Justification. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, it's fun. It's fun paywork for lawyers. That's what was OK. So with those four things being said can can your calibration end with nobody below the line? That'd most likely. mean, understand that because company's make But by yeah, if the company wasn't making you, OK, OK can everyone be doing great job? Can we really be a quote rock star team? They exist, I'm sure. And and also if I'm call hypocrisy the last thing I'd do. last my last dying breath. Do the pay decisions always live this rating system? Because me tell you, let me tell you, you're I was workplace one time where the stars of, know, exceeds doing a good job doing crummy job. I remember what the five star rating whatever that would get in your performance review end year were completely disconnected from the amount getting bonus because a bonus amount was doled out to department as a percentage is like your department has 20 percent to divide between the eight people or whatever. And the systems were completely disconnected. So your performance had nothing do with how much money got performance raise whatever that you got because one was given you by finance. The other was doled out by H.R., which is, know, basically a mechanism the, the leadership. Yeah. know, whatever system they use. So that would be my other question is are these the same system being applied because they haven't been places that I've worked. They're not very common. That's what I'm say. makes me want to burn someone's house down [UH] So or which these four jobs that I talked about before Is your company actually solving it It's, is it, budget part? Is it the paperwork part? it the lawyer part or it the manager not differentiated? That's Is it the not holding managers accountable for it? Like let us know comments and and and and then I'll, I'll, I'll tell story just know that none these four require quota That's true. Yeah. Actually, that's true. So we started with Jack Welch calling it the kindest form of management. And then and then maybe making some money and fame or whatever. So he did all right. He did all right. know, and then quit you know, was, some drama there where she quit it. he was oh, don't know I cut all that of podcast. could gone into like he was little salty they quit his system. He was, was recorded as being quite salty. And then Microsoft quit and then Ford[UH] wrote bunch checks because got sued. Yeah. After they quit and then and then. So here's one more thing to consider. So the curve, it's [UH] it never found your low performance or wasn't guaranteed to find manufactured low performance. Think about that one for second. Yeah. my goodness. This is guarantee. Like we said, there's no guarantee low performers are actually in the bottom 10 20 whatever percent. Right? So in way, the curve forced, I guess, collateral damage. So some people basically got wound up in the wrong bracket through fault of their own. I don't know we can extend that. Maybe some people deserve be there. Who knows? Right not casting judgment today. mean, just by what just said, like some people did deserve be there. But this is the like rather than working with you, treating you like an adult, trying work give you a fair shape. We just push you into that bucket because I don't wanna deal with it. wanna deal easier. Yeah, it's easier. And and the system gives me air cover form of lawyers and documentation processes. Yeah, So on screen right now is sticky that can use help you remember to burn someone's down. No to think about these questions the coming week. OK, can pause the video. can write these down on sticky note. Put on the edge your monitor. You can search your performance policy for the for percentage or metric or a Ouija board or something. Something. Right. You count number times that it didn't help you. You know, can ask which four jobs in your org is being replaced by this weird metric this weird curve or whatever this nonsense bellcurve that we've been talking about. So looking these points anyone who's listening just to just on audio Number I'm going read for one [UH] your bell curve wasn't discovered your people. It was installed your processes Number two in forced ranking. There exactly two ways up. Number one, get better or number two, make everyone around you look worse on people. That's right. And number three, force racking is for jobs and not one them needs quota at all. True. Yeah And that's it. So Om, which one which one throw in monitor? Which is your favorite out these? oh, my favorite one is number one. Oh, is Yeah. Yeah. It's not people installed by youress And then you're calling it evidence and hiding behind it. Oh, oh, not good. What manager would do that? manager would hide behind and not not deal with it. if you recognize this, let know. Like say, use burner account boy, like subscribe. This was a good one. Like I think learned something today. I think need go buy Jack Welch book. I