This blog covers “rank and yank” , and its apologist, Dick Grote, because of the raw, deceptive use of managerial authority that forced ranking performance management programs permit in the name of being “tough”. But on whom is this toughness imposed? The vulnerable employee who is left out of the near-conspiratorial management calibration meetings and … Continue reading Dick Grote and the “C Bucket”: “Messy Performance Reviews” Document Explains Forced Ranking Relies on Abuse of Managerial Power and Denial of Information to Affected Employees
This report is like a recipe of planning destruction in an organized way (creating a transition plan; checking that the employee is not fired on a birthday, shortly before a pension is vested, and so on) making it seem normal, but the effect of the employee losing his or her livelihood and income stream is notably absent. The immoral notion that human beings can be acquired, used up, demeaned, and then thrown away pervades the report. The notion that management persons are perfect by virtue of their position alone is illogical.
Dick Grote advocates for rampant abuse of employees in the forced-ranking process. Specifically, employees are responsible for doing the manager’s job of supervision and of satisfying the whims of their supervisor, and managers are merely expected to pass judgment on their subordinates and then presumably to sit in judgment at the calibration meeting.
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.
While the words of POTUS Donald Trump were hard to hear, they are the result of covertly practiced & rampant systemic discrimination.
Dick Grote has authored another article on “rank and yank,” “What to do when you think your performance review is wrong” (published in the Harvard Business Review (March 7, 2017)). This time the defense of the system is indirect—informing the recipient of a “C-Bucket” rating to accept it. Indeed, as Grote states in the article, nothing the employee argues against the rating is likely to change it.
Because of the calibration meeting, where managers rank employees, changing a rating means changing it for others, given that rank and yank is a rigid, inhuman, and employee-abusive system.
Knight, Rebecca (2016). “The Right Way to Fire Someone.” Harvard Business Review. February 5. The article, “The Right Way to Fire Someone,” by Rebecca Knight, is in the Harvard Business Review. This article is pro-management, which is not surprising because Harvard Business School published Dick Grote’s book on forced ranking. The core of the anecdotes … Continue reading Dick Grote: A Comment on the HBS Article, “The Right Way to Fire Someone.” Management Tactic of Transferring Blame to Labor is Unacceptable; Vigilance of these Tactics Obligatory
With this blog’s coverage of Grote’s rank and yank, this manipulative management style was not new, but what did draw attention is Vanguard’s interest in covering up its use of rank and yank. When an organization decides to enforce rank and yank, that organization must reduce “management” to the calibration meeting’s ranking process. The managers no longer manage the business but instead spend time sorting out who is going to be placed in the firing-level rank during the calibration meeting.
The DoD proponents propose undemocratic, unfair, and dictatorial pay-for-performance policies that betray the democratic republic foundations of the country. In addition, the DoD proponents should never forget that the employees are also United States citizens and permanent residents and taxpayers and that agencies have authority through the consent of U.S. citizens and residents.
Furthermore, the expectation of constant availability without compensation is thoroughly abusive. Amazon does not perform it service for customers for free; thus, Amazon should not expect overtime without compensation. The “salaried” designation is being abused, as low salaries are diluted every minute beyond a 40 hour work week.