Dick Grote: “Poor Performance” as Cover for Persistent Unstable Employment and Institutionalized Managerial Bullying
Dick Grote, of Grote Consulting (“strategy-based performance management”), is an apologist for a forced-rank performance evaluation. While a system that is used in large private-sector organizations, whose main purpose is to provide profit to the shareholder, it seems that the practice is entering other organizations, government, health care, or education, whose main purpose is to provide service to human beings. As a result, use of the bell curve system in any non-private-sector organization is akin to a hammer looking to make nails that it could strike.
The whole system of performance appraisal is destroyed with bell curve systems. The goal of such systems is not the improvement of staff but rather the assurance that a certain percentage of staff will be fired each year through assignment of employees to so-called buckets by line management and those choices are reinforced by upper-level management. Fair treatment of the rated employee goes out the window because the only concern is the rigid consistency of the bucket assignments regardless of the workplace situation, including managerial abuse or incompetence.
|Percentage(amounts can be adjusted)||Effect|
|A||20||Lavish rewards, encouragement|
|B||70||Little to paltry increase|
|C||10||Pressure to quit or firing|
If the selection seems to overload the firing group with protected class members, there is no failsafe; the filigree of “poor performance” is used as a justifying and protective cover. This cover can be questionable with the overwhelming of protected class members in the group slated for firing without any substantive review by any member of management, to the insult of all the civil rights laws, which were all hard won.
But what if a company’s forced ranking procedure, honestly and objectively done, reveals that the blacks or women or disabled employees just aren’t as talented as the white ones? Should they do what some Harvard professors are said to do and award A’s to all the blacks, just to keep them from squawking?” (Grote, page 4).
If the concern is to ensure a rigidly applied performance system, then you cannot have a truly honest and objective forced ranking procedure; the only concern is the ranking process itself, not its effect on the targeted employee, which can include the (secret) managerial targeting of protected class members to be placed in the C bucket and fired.
Nowhere in any of Grote’s writings does he address managerial misbehavior, which is quite likely given that the C bucket people do not have any realistic chance of reversing the (secret) decision (Grote, page 11) and the script for C bucket personnel is so witheringly negative such that it encourages abusive, bullying behavior toward the people forced into the C bucket (people who are dehumanized consistently in Grote’s writings) in order to support and justify the rigid, top-down, take-it-or-leave-it system.
For example, the manager documents the C bucket employee’s “failures” for an extended period,
Phase two is execution. One of the most important things here is to keep an ongoing performance log. As much as we talk about that, it is one of the toughest things for managers to do on an ongoing basis. A Web-based system is so powerful because it makes it easier for managers to do this. When we designed the Grote System, we created an email reminder system that signals managers to do this on a regular basis. By doing this throughout the year, you overcome the most serious of all rating errors, recency effect. With the recency effect you only base your rating on the most recent outcomes that you can remember. Managers should also update goals and objectives as conditions change. My third tip is to conduct a tough mid-cycle review. We know that a review half way through the year is important. If a manager has a particularly tough employee, the mid-year review is the opportunity for them to lay out difficult expectations before the end of the year. Managers should err on the side of being excessively tough in the mid-year review as a way of building performance.
but the targeted employee is given only short notice for a “performance review” meeting.
The final stage of the performance appraisal is the performance review. One tip I have is to give the appraisal form to the employee for review an hour or two before the meeting. By doing this, employees have a chance to review the comments and prepare a list of questions to help them fully understand the evaluation. This helps to reduce the defensiveness that tends to come out in performance discussions. Another quick tip is to gain understanding from the evaluation process, not agreement. The tougher a manager´s expectations and demands are, the less likely you are going to get full agreement from an employee. That´s OK because your purpose is not to gain agreement, but to gain understanding.
Finally, remember the words of John Dillinger, the bank robber. He once said, “Before you rob your first bank, knock off a couple of gas stations.” If you´ve got one person amongst your subordinates that is going to be a particularly difficult review, do not start with the tough one. Start with the easy employees and work your way up.
Employees of all organizations need to be aware of the negative consequences of secretly applied forced-rank performance systems.
Recommended Reading Material
Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States
Ellis Cose, Colorblind
Ellis Cose, The Rage of the Privileged Class
David Shipler, A Country of Strangers
Leonard Steinhorn and Barbara Diggs-Brown, By the Color of Our Skin: The Illusion of Integration and the Reality of Race
Nathan Newman and J.J. Gass, A New Birth of Freedom: the Forgotten History of the 13th, 14th, AND 15th Amendments
William Clark, Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and The Future of the Dollar
- U.S. Judiciary: Chief Justice John Roberts Issues 2013 Year-End Report
- Federal Employees: 2013 Executive Order for Early Dismissal Unlikely
- U.S. Congress: GOP Stewardship of Their Legislative Responsibilities Disappointing; Must Cease Blaming and Punishing the 99%
- U.S. State Department: United States Uses Casualties to Support Military Action; Pentagon Declined to Count Civilian Casualties Caused by U.S.’s War Conduct
- David Ignatius: Military Action Against Syria Not Justified; Statement to Support Warmongering Deceptive
- December 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- "Colorblindness": Summary of President Barack Obama's July 17, 2009 Speech at the NAACP's Convention in New York City
- Unemployment Insurance: Employers Can Challenge Unemployment Claims of Former Employees; MD and VA Publish Decisions to Help Claimants in Defending Their Claims
- Ricci v. DeStefano: A Review of the Amicus Curiae Briefs
- NCAA: Health Insurance for Student-Athletes--Who Pays When Injuries Occur?
- Higher Education: Forced Grade Distributions (Curved Classes) Are Unfair; "Objective" Mathematics Has No Effect On Subjective Human Behavior
- Supreme Court: For Law Clerk Positions, Only "Elite" Law School Grads (In General) Need Apply
- Comment Policy