Has anyone else read this?

[codger]

I just finished reading a book entitled "Topgrading" by Bradford Smart, Ph.D.

It's about hiring and keeping the best (top 10%) of your employees. It makes a lot of good points, and is (I think) well-intentioned. It is also fatally flawed.

The whole premise is that an organization can neatly compartmentalize everyone in their workforce into one of three groups. The A's the B's and the C's. He advises dumping the C-lavel employees ASAP. This is geared toward the employment "at will" states.

The problem I have with this is that even though each employee is supposedly run through a four hour evaluation, the evaluation criteria is pretty much arbitrary, and the actual "grading" on each question is done subjectively by the interviewer. There's nothing scientific about interviewing people from a list of questions that may be appropriate for their job, and the decision as to whether they are an 'A' , a 'B' or a 'C' employee comes down to the interviewer's evaluation. There is no appeal process for the employee or applicant who thinks that they were screwed.

I've yet to see a process that allows the one whose job hangs in the balabce to participate in the evaluation.

Another fancy rationale to get rid of those employees we don't like (for whatever reason). The book treats the subject like it's rocket science.

I once worked for an outfit that quietly "implemented" the Topgrading methodology, only they didn't want to waste time with four hour evaluations. They simply gave each manager a list of his/her employees and asked them to grade them A, B or C. This way they could say that they used a methodology to get rid of anyone they wanted. The poor ba$tards who got canned never knew what hit them.

Life in the corporation - ain't it fun?


[edited 7/18/05 to fix typo]

[John Masterson]

Most people are average. Clearly every company cannot have "the best people"...there are not enough of them available, and there never will be.

And even if you do manage to procure a set of "A" people, you won't keep them forever. So you certainly cannot rely on 'having the best people' as a corporate foundational strategy!

The real task is to use the people you DO have in the best way. Matching people correctly to the tasks at hand, and motivating people to do the best they can, will get you a lot farther.

But the Topgrading people (and they are ALL clearly "A+ " people, eh?) apparently have missed the simple mathematics of it. They think they can pull it off because they are smarter.

Hehe, in my experience, the people who think they are smarter than everyone else are some of the easiest people to fool...just play to their vanity.


--- JM

[Jeremy Singer]

A supermarket near me makes a point of hiring some people who are mentally handicapped to do bagging and cashier work.
I would grade most of them as C's.
I don't want them fired just because they are not A's and B's.
They are doing the best they can with what they've got.
We need not adopt the ethos of Sparta, where the last runner in a race was whipped.

[David Cressey]

[Rastus P Shagnasty]

Ford Motor Company (Jac Nasser) implemented something like this.  After the lawsuits began they backed down.  Somehow they were firing a lot of people over 50.  Seems their managers didnt think one could function very well at that advanced age.
Go figure.

[TRexx]

My last client did  this.  Initially they used a ranking system where the "worst" performers were axed. But people complained that it was entirely possible that the worst performer in an outstanding group was still an outstanding  performer.  So they adopted an "objective" method.

Once a year everyone was rated 1, 2 or 3. (Theoretically there were also grades of 4 and 5, but those unlucky folks were immediately let go).  Raises and profit sharing were largely a function of this rating, and when it was time for a resource action, the 3's went.  

Unfortunately, managers were under strict orders to rate their troops according to a quota. Basically, upper managment decided they need to cut x% of the workforce, so word was sent down that x% of the troops must be rated as 3.   Then they could say "See. We are getting rid of the dead wood"  

The only place I've seen topgrading actually work is in a sales organization.  It's quite easy to rank your sales reps then replace the bottem x%.

[The Gorn]

I agree completely with Jeremy on moral as well as practical grounds. So-called A's may have low tolerance for necessary but somewhat menial tasks. The great thing about the diversity of possible work roles is that even so-called "low achievers" may be challenged by a humble role.

"Only retaining the best" is a code phrase for implementing "Lord of the Flies" in real life. I see it as a type of corporate ego trip.

[codger]

The only place I've seen topgrading actually work is in a sales organization. It's quite easy to rank your sales reps then replace the bottem x%.

Exactly.

How can the Topgrading "system" work if there is no objective metric to evaluate?

The scary thing is that a lot of big companies have adopted this approach. (I'm certain that they have adopted it in name only. Kinda like TQM et al.)

All I have to do is think of the bozos I've endured as managers in my own career and I shudder to think what you'd end up with if they were allowed to pick their top 10%.

I've never been in a company that would actually spend the four hours per employee/applicant completing a Chronological In-Depth Structured (CIDS) Interview form set.

The "system" ignores the fact that off-shored workers are not evaluated at all by the Topgrading process. If there are groups excluded from evaluation, how can the process be either fair or cost-effective?

Just more HR bull$hit IMHO. It does work well to get the geezers, and other undesirables off of the payroll, without those messy lawsuits.

[bitblt]

Seems that it's Deming ( perhaps Drucker ) who is quoted as as asking, "Did you buy theem that way or did you make them?" when he was told by a client that they were letting go of the "dead wood."

[Jeremy Singer]

Would you fire the bottom 1/3rd performers every year?

[John Masterson]

Jeremy,

Very good point!

Anyway, the whole "We've got the best people" thing, ie., "Our team is stronger than your team", is shallow thinking  and lacks real insight into the problem and the solution for creating a strong company populated by real human beings.

As I said above, the Bell Curve will not be denied. Most of everybody is average. Deal with it.

And this thought is not original. Peter Drucker made my very point long ago, I confess.

--- JM

[Jeremy Singer]

There is competition in the forest, but in the end, the forest is not the last champion tree.  What makes a healthy forest is big ones and little ones and all the ones between.
In fact, you can cut down the biggest trees and still have a pretty good forest.

[David Cressey]

I dealt with the phenomenon of "we've got the best people" up close and personal back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when I worked in customer training.

We were always beseiged by managers who wanted us to teach in 3 weeks what we had determined should be taught in 5 weeks.  And their argument was always the same:  "my people are smarter than most programmers."  They were wrong.  Their people usually conformed to the Bell curve.

Whenever we gave in to one of these "my people are smarter" managers,  the result was almost always the same:  mediocre training,  and a dissatisfied client.  

One thing I don't know anything about is the current wave of managers, the idiots who learned one trick:  rule by humiliation.  We see this illustrated over and over again in Dilbert.  

What I wonder is this?  Does the same PHB who rules by humiliation walk around outside the shop telling everybody "I've got the smartest people"?  If he does, how does he prevent word of that from getting back to his people?

[David Cressey]

Even at MIT,  where I did some of my most interesting work,  Nobel Laureates were outnumbered 20 to 1 by "entry level PhDs", Grad Student TAs, and the like.  

And that's not even including non academic staff.  

On the other hand,  some of the people serving in the cafeteria were probably future Nobel Laureates.

[John Masterson]

David wondered about a manager who rules by humiliating, but boasts publicly of having the smartest people:

"...how does he prevent word of that from getting back to his people? "

Answer: Actually, the manager is not smart enough to have figured out that this is a problem.

--- JM