promotions and firing policy n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Promotions and firing policy PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Promotions and firing policy

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 35

Promotions and firing policy - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Promotions and firing policy. Group 2 ; George Papakyriakopoulos Selim Kozbe Chris Haigh Hazem Aljehairan Haizhen Wang Perizat Zholdybekova. April 28, 2009. Jack Welch, CEO of GE Corporation and Six Sigma Guru , 2001:

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Promotions and firing policy' - paul

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
promotions and firing policy

Promotions and firing policy

Group 2 ;

George Papakyriakopoulos

Selim Kozbe

Chris Haigh

Hazem Aljehairan

Haizhen Wang

Perizat Zholdybekova

April 28, 2009


Jack Welch, CEO of GE Corporation and Six Sigma Guru, 2001:

  • “A company that bets its future on its people must remove the lower 10%...and keep removing it every year”.
  • How to interpret this policy in light of
  • (Ho, S.K. and Galloway, L., 1996)
dspk has 4 elements 1 st element 1 appreciation for a system
DSPK has 4 elements: 1st element1. Appreciation for a system
  • Behaviours of employees, shareholders, customers, and suppliers impact on company’s objectives.
dspk has 4 elements 2 nd element 2 knowledge of variations
DSPK has 4 elements: 2nd element2. Knowledge of variations.
  • Causes of variations:
  • -special: e,g,, change of operator, procedure
  • -common: e.g., poor design, inadequate equipment and procedure
dspk has 4 elements 3 rd element 3 theory of knowledge
DSPK has 4 elements: 3rd element3. Theory of knowledge
  • Interpretation of data from experiment is prediction. Examples and experience can teach to something only with prediction.
dspk has 4 elements 4 th element 4 psychology
DSPK has 4 elements: 4th element4. Psychology
  • Psychological aspect of human interaction: intrinsic and extrinsic motivations.
how to evaluate
How to Evaluate?
  • Compare Employees to Absolute Standards
    • Performance compared to set goals
    • Avoids conflict among workers
    • May decrease differentiation
  • Compare Employees Relative to Each Other
    • Ranking allows for comparison of employees but does not shed light on the distribution of employee performance.
    • Forces a distribution among workers
    • May create false distinctions and competition
what to evaluate
What to Evaluate?
  • Traits Measures
    • Are an assessment of how the employee fits with the organization’s culture, not what the employee actually does.
  • Behavior-based measures
    • Focus on what an employee does correctly and what the employee should do differently.
  • Results-based measures
    • Focus is on accomplishments or outcomes that can be measured objectively.
    • Problems occur when results measures are difficult to obtain, outside employee control, or ignore the means by which the results were obtained.
trait based appraisals
Trait-Based Appraisals
  • Characteristics that are enduring and general
    • e.g. “Leadership” “Communication” “Decisiveness”
  • Competency models vs. Trait-based appraisal
    • Are the characteristics really related to performance?
  • Potential Problems
    • Focus on person rather than performance
    • May be ambiguous or arbitrary
    • Poor feedback and goal setting
    • Poor reliability and validity

“An employer has no business with a man’s personality. Employment is a specific contract calling for specific performance and nothing else. Any attempt of an employer to go beyond this is usurpation. It is an abuse of power. An employee owes no “loyalty,” he owes no “love,” and no “attitudes” – he owes performance and nothing else.”

Peter Drucker

Management Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices (1974)

behavior based appraisal
Behavior-Based Appraisal
  • Focus on specific behaviors with examples
    • Simple Behavioral Scale
    • Behavioral Frequency / Observation Scale (BOS)
    • Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS)
  • Positives
    • More valid and reliable
    • Acceptable to employees
    • Better for development and improvement
  • Potential Problems
    • Difficult and expensive to develop
    • Needs to match jobs closely to be effective
    • Emphasizes behaviors (at the expense of others?)
    • Focuses on behavior rather than results
results based appraisal
Results-Based Appraisal
  • Focus on results compared to specific goals
    • Should be clear and unambiguous
    • Requires alignment of expectations
    • May promote gaming of the system
    • Beware of results at any cost and excessive results orientation
    • Time consuming and needs constant updating
  • “Management by Objectives” or MBO
    • Linking individual goals with business strategy
    • Organizational goals flow down to depts. and employees
    • Focus on planning, action items, and interim reviews
    • Objectives negotiated and agreed upon by employees
balanced scorecard
Balanced Scorecard

“What you measure is what you get”

  • Financial vs. operational measures
  • Short term vs. long-term effectiveness

Specific goals and measures for:

  • Shareholder satisfaction
  • Customer satisfaction
  • Operational Excellence
  • Innovation and Learning
  • Others?
forced ranking systems1
Forced Ranking Systems
  • Gained popularity following GE
  • Up to 20% of companies
  • Used by:
    • Conoco
    • Capital One
    • Sun Microsystems
    • Cisco
    • EDS
    • Hallmark Cards
  • Used and abandoned by:
    • Ford
    • Goodyear
  • Microsoft
  • Hewlett-Packard
  • Intel
  • Texas Instruments
  • Enron
when managers have discretion
When managers have discretion:
  • They tend to give “Above average” ratings.
  • They prefer to give uniform ratings regardless of performance.
  • They tend not to use the ends of the rating scale.

“A company that bets its future on its people must remove the lower 10% and keep removing every year – always raising the bar of performance and increasing the quality of leadership.”

Jack Welch, former GE CEO


The “Vitality Curve”

“The bottom 10”

“The top 20”

“The Vital 70”

Jack Welch “Jack: Straight From the Gut” 2001

evolution of ford s policy
Evolution of Ford’s Policy

January, 2000: Ford begins new performance evaluation policy

  • Top 20,000 managers
  • 10% of the executives will get A's, 80% will get B's, and 10% will get C's.
  • C’s are not eligible for bonuses. Two C's in a row are grounds for dismissal.
  • Quota for C’s later reduced to 5%

July, 2001: Ford eliminates the "A," "B," and "C" ratings in favor of "top achiever," "achiever," or "improvement required.” Quotas dropped for employees to be ranked as "achiever" and "needs improvement."

April, 2002: Ford revises its performance review system to “focus on creating bonds between managers and employees”, and will have no ranking quotas.

who evaluates
Who Evaluates?

Problems with immediate supervisors conducting performance evaluations:

  • Lacking appropriate information to provide informed feedback on employee performance.
  • Insufficient observation of the employee’s day-to-day work to validly assess performance.
  • Lack of knowledge about the technical dimensions of a subordinate’s work.
  • Lack of training or appreciation for the evaluation process.
  • Perceptual errors by supervisors that create bias or lack of subjectivity in evaluations.
perceptual errors of raters
Perceptual Errors of Raters
  • Halo Effect
  • Stereotyping
  • Recency Error
perceptual errors of raters1
Perceptual Errors of Raters
  • Halo Effect
    • Rater allows a single trait, outcome or consideration to influence other measures of performance.
  • Stereotyping
    • Rater makes performance judgments based on employee’s personal characteristics rather than the employee’s actual performance.
  • Recency Error
    • Recent events and behaviors of the employee bias the rater’s evaluation of the employee’s overall performance.
perceptual errors of raters2
Perceptual Errors of Raters
  • Central Tendency Error
  • Leniency or Strictness Errors
  • Personal Biases and Organizational Politics
perceptual errors of raters3
Perceptual Errors of Raters
  • Central Tendency Error
    • Evaluator avoids higher and lower ends of performance assessment rating in favor of placing all employees at or near the middle of the scales.
  • Leniency or Strictness Errors
    • Evaluator’s tendency is to rate all employees either above (leniency) or below (strictness) their actual performance level.
  • Personal Biases and Organizational Politics
    • Have a significant impact on the ratings employees receive from their supervisors.
performance appraisal challenges
Performance Appraisal Challenges
  • Gender Bias
    • Managers tend to give women evaluations that are less critical and less straightforward.
  • Attribution Theory
    • People tend to overestimate the influence of individual factors (such as motivation) and underestimate the influence of environmental factors when assessing others behavior.
  • Frame of Reference
conducting a fair appraisal
Conducting A Fair Appraisal

1. Collect appraisal data

  • Objective data on job performance
  • Critical incidents (good and bad)
  • Behavioral observation

2. Evaluate performance

  • Before completing form – think about intended result
  • Avoid biases
  • Consider how the message will be viewed by employee
  • Consider circumstances beyond employee’s control
  • Consider past evaluations
conducting a fair appraisal1
Conducting A Fair Appraisal

3. Write the appraisal

  • Have courage to address poor performers
  • Be specific and use examples
  • Avoid nitpicking
  • Additional evidence needed for high/low performers
  • Tied to specific goals
  • Prioritize development needs
providing performance feedback
Providing Performance Feedback
  • Choose a quiet private location.
  • Describe performance, not personality.
  • Providing specific examples and quantify whenever possible.
  • Be honest.
  • Avoid vague statements or unsubstantiated claims.
  • Limit plans for change, growth, and development to a few important items that are achievable.
  • Keep career discussions separate from performance feedback.
  • Create a development plan.
  • Give the employee a chance to respond.
dealing with poor performers
Dealing With Poor Performers
  • Avoiding problems usually makes them worse.
    • “Why didn’t you tell me this before?”
  • Approach the employee for mutual benefit – to solve the problem and maintain the relationship.
    • Threats and punishment increase compliance but....
  • Good intentions matter.
identifying performance gap
Identifying Performance Gap

1. Identify a specific gap between performance and expectations.

Assume an employee says:

“I know you are not happy with something, but I am not sure what I am doing wrong. What exactly is it that concerns you?”


“I want to make sure that I’m doing the job the way you want it done. What exactly should I do so that you will say I am doing a good job?”

thank you
  • Questions?