[TravelTechGuy]

re: the performance review: don't know about your work place, but the first quarterly review I got at [insert name of large known company], my manger sat me down and explained she is budgeted a certain amount of bonus points for her 5 team members, and required to "grade on a curve". Hence, 1 team member will be "above average", 3 will be "average", and one "below average" every quarter. And for fairness, she rotates the names. I was deemed "below average" since it was my first quarter, but the good news, she said, is when she nominates me for "average" next quarter, she'd add a "shows improvement" comment to it!

Bare in mind, real actual money was tied to this stupid scheme, and you had to spend at least 2 hours writing a document explaining what you've done for the company, the team and the product, to justify your "averageness".

I lasted 3 quarters in that social experiment. And I'll laugh in the face of corporate recruiters till the day I die.

[geomark]

I was a manager in a nearly identical situation. I had 5 engineers working for me at a remote office. The "curve" had not been used in past years. Now they insisted on applying it. Since 4 out of 5 had substantially exceeded their goals it would have been a lie to state that any of them had not met expectations. So I told my boss no, I'm not doing it. You can take whatever raise you planned for me and spread it across my direct reports (unstated was that I would almost certainly quit as a result). Or you can fire me for insubordination. He ran that back up the chain of command. Apparently I wasn't the only middle manager who refused to do it, as senior management ended up rescinding the order.

Moral of the story: If you are a middle manager then grow a backbone.

[pklausler]

(I think this is a true story, but it was somewhat before my time.)

Control Data decided to lay off 10% of its employees, and to do so across the board. Seymour Cray had a group of only 20 engineers in his lean development group in Chippewa Falls, so they told him to fire two. So he and Les Davis, his right-hand man, quit and started Cray Research.

[kQq9oHeAz6wLLS]

"March 1972 an appalling rumor swept through the hallways at Control Data--Seymour Cray had resigned! The rumor was quickly confirmed by a press release. The press release was worded carefully to soothe investor fears. Seymour was reported to be "phasing out" of full-time employment with Control Data It was emphasized that development would continue at the Chippewa Lab. Trading in Control Data stock was briefly suspended. Old-timers who had followed Seymour's career since his Univac days, many of whom had worked with him at Chippewa, were skeptical of the official statements. What could have caused Seymour to resign? He was, of course, a wealthy man from his stock holdings and could do what he wished. But because he had always done just exactly what he pleased at Chippewa, why should he resign to seek more freedom as his own boss? The statement in the press release simply did not make sense. Two rumors told to me at the time may have no truth whatsoever, but they do capture the flavor of the suspicions of many employees.

The first story concerns a Control Data senior financial executive who one day reportedly called Seymour at Chippewa Falls and told him that the lab budget would have to be cut by 10 percent. The Chippewa Lab, with its thirty-odd employees was certainly the most cost-effective computer development facility in the world. Certainly it was the envy of IBM, as attested to by the Watson memo described earlier. Seymour reportedly replied, "Fine, cut me and Les Davis out of the budget" and hung up the phone. This rumor was given credibility by the continuing budget crunches and by the fact that Les Davis, Seymour's chief assistant did resign and join Seymour in his new venture.

The second story was told to me by a friend who had worked at the Chippewa Lab. He met Seymour in the hallway at headquarters one day. Knowing that Seymour hated being away from his work at Chippewa, he asked him what he was doing at headquarters. Seymour replied that he had been asked to serve on a senior technical task force that had been convened to recommend the future direction of computer development at Control Data Seymour intensely disliked meetings and task forces, but he agreed to serve because he had been personally assured by a very senior executive that the recommendation of the task force was vital to the future of the corporation. The task force of seven members met for some weeks and concluded that the design direction being taken by the model 8600 (the newest machine under development at Chippewa, successor to the model 7600) was indeed the best architecture for future CDC computers. Just before the final report was submitted, the members of the task force received memos from a second senior executive thanking them for their efforts and stating that the corporation had elected to go in a different design direction. Seymour immediately resigned."

From "A Few Good Men From UNIVAC"

[beezle]

Still have my dad's "Programming Univac Systems Instruction Manual 1" from 1953 when he started working for Sperry Rand. 1950s-1960s must have been a phenomenal time to work in the nascent computing industry.

[koolba]

> If you are a middle manager then grow a backbone.

This applies more generally even if you’re not managing people. Particularly as most corporate cogs are programmed to avoid confrontation. You’re more likely to get someone who respects your principles or someone who just bends over than an incalcitrant “no”.

[thewileyone]

I put together performance metrics that showed my team members were less than 5% deviation from each other, thus I couldn't grade on the curve. HR couldn't argue against that.

[ramphastidae]

Thank you for doing that.

[achalkley]

This.

[duxup]

I worked at a company that operated like that. Each manager could only put in so many high marks.

Company had something like 5000 employees.

I felt good that I often got the highest mark, but others were doing well too, they deserved more.

I finally asked my boss, he told me.

“I figured out that other being told in an email how to award perf reviews… nobody checks… so I give everyone the highest reward.”

[Msw242]

Upper and middle management might be aware but every system needs a release valve. E.g. you can't have juries without the risk of jury nullification.

[sokoloff]

Managers who just give everyone the highest rating are generally the reason that these forced curve policies are created.

[andrewflnr]

That doesn't mean the managers are wrong.

[sokoloff]

That is definitely (and self-evidently) true! Of all managers who rate everyone on their team as having achieved the highest performance standard, what fraction of those cases do you think are subjectively “correct”? In my experience, it’s way, way, way under half.

Further, it’s rare for the managers giving the 100% top performance evaluation to individuals to be leading groups with high overall accomplishment/delivery. (Occam’s Razor suggests that it’s evidence of poor leadership to be squandering the ability and contributions of all these high-performers. An analog might be an MLB Manager with All-Star players at every position and turning in a 0.500 season; they should expect to be fired.)

[holoduke]

It's a bad metric anyway. A persons rating should not be depending on the work performance. It should be depending on the happiness factor of the person. The performance of that person is the responsibility of his/her manager. So whenever a person performance bad, the manager must either fix it or leave. This principle is having so much more success than your example.

[beachy]

What? That sounds like Alice in wonderland.

Sure a manager can affect performance but ultimately it's down to the individual.

And happiness is all nice and good but if work is the only thing that affects your happiness then you have some deep self-discovery urgently pending.

[andrewflnr]

This is going too far the other direction. Even if we assume no one is just slacking (which is a bad assumption), sometimes people are just not suited to the job they're in, and there's nothing a manager can reasonably do to change that, short of removing them.

[jldl805]

Oh you're one of those people who thinks other people are the cause of one's own happiness? Or lack thereof? Geesh. Your emotions are entirely your own responsibility. Full stop.

[andrewflnr]

It doesn't have to be a big fraction, just non-zero. Trying to ban the expression of improbable states is a form of trying to force the territory to fit the map, then also suppressing the creation of more accurate maps. I can't overstate how stupid this is.

Under such a moronic system, with your reports' welfare on the line, I believe marking everyone as a top performer is an admirable form of rebellion.

[noizejoy]

As someone who’s worked and managed in that type of environment and later left that world to start small companies, I was very glad, that this corporate insanity made it possible to hire great individuals away from big corporations.

[mikestew]

Welcome to Microsoft 15-20 years ago. Or any company that uses stack ranking or a euphemism for same. As it was explained to me, “Jesus, John the Baptist, and the apostle Paul go in for their reviews. Who gets the ‘below average’?”

[sjg007]

Jesus cause he was clearly crucified.

[mateo411]

John the Baptist lost his head.

[AareyBaba]

Paul was wasting his time sending email to the corinthians

[nickd2001]

Paul may have previously got "need improvement" while he was still Saul ;)

[cyberlurker]

I had a very similar experience. Also, the year after a promotion there was a universal unwritten rule that you get a need improvement review no matter how well you performed.

[jokethrowaway]

I've been on the other side of it.

I hated it but I had to pick the X best in the team. You should have reported your manager to HR.

[kQq9oHeAz6wLLS]

General Electric?