This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_20DD_01C2B8AD.07EB0150
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It guarantees HP will have a certain level of staff turnover every year. =
If HP don't hire replacements the staffing levels will drop to the point =
they will not be able to meet their customer support agreements. I'd =
strongly suspect the HP3000 support group have been granted an executive =
exception by Carly from this 5% rule, meaning some other department is =
going to have to lay more employees heads on the line to make up the =
difference.
We are human beings, not robots. What happens to the great employee who =
performs well year after year, but one year is struck with personal =
problems that affect his/her on the job performance? In HP's world, they =
would land up in PRB1 and get tossed out. Or, does HP take into account =
during performance/ranking evaluation what this employee is going thru.
To me, this new performance/ranking procedure makes HP less of a =
people-oriented enterprise.
"fred White" <[log in to unmask]> wrote in message =
news:3e1cfebd$1@skycache-news.fidnet.com...
> On Wednesday, January 8, 2003, at 12:13 PM, Duane Percox wrote:
>=20
> > Paul wrote:
> >
> >> New ranking/performance system at HP where every year no matter how
> >> good
> >> their performance is 5% of the staff will be placed in a certain
> >> ranking
> >> category that basically seals that employees fate to be terminated.
> >
> > Ever have a class in college where you were graded on a curve :-)
> >
> > Relative based performance ranking has lots of merit and rewards =
those
> > who consistently outperform the group while providing
> > incentive/motivation
> > for the bottom performers to consider other career options.
>=20
> This technique is fraught with problems. Can any of you guess some of
> them?
>=20
> FW
>=20
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
------=_NextPart_000_20DD_01C2B8AD.07EB0150
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It guarantees HP will =
have a certain=20
level of staff turnover every year. If HP don't hire replacements the =
staffing=20
levels will drop to the point they will not be able to meet their =
customer=20
support agreements. I'd strongly suspect the HP3000 support group have =
been=20
granted an executive exception by Carly from this 5% rule, meaning some =
other=20
department is going to have to lay more employees heads on the line to =
make up=20
the difference.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>We are human beings, =
not robots. What=20
happens to the great employee who performs well year after year, but one =
year is=20
struck with personal problems that affect his/her on the job =
performance?=20
In HP's world, they would land up in PRB1 and get tossed out. Or, does =
HP take=20
into account during performance/ranking evaluation what this employee is =
going=20
thru.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>To me, this new =
performance/ranking=20
procedure makes HP less of a people-oriented enterprise.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"fred White" <</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>[log in to unmask]</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> =
wrote in message=20
</FONT><A href=3D"news:[log in to unmask]"><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>news:[log in to unmask]</FONT></A><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>...</FONT></DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> On Wednesday, =
January 8,=20
2003, at 12:13 PM, Duane Percox wrote:<BR>> <BR>> > Paul =
wrote:<BR>>=20
><BR>> >> New ranking/performance system at HP where every =
year no=20
matter how<BR>> >> good<BR>> >> their performance is =
5% of the=20
staff will be placed in a certain<BR>> >> ranking<BR>> =
>>=20
category that basically seals that employees fate to be =
terminated.<BR>>=20
><BR>> > Ever have a class in college where you were graded on =
a curve=20
:-)<BR>> ><BR>> > Relative based performance ranking has =
lots of=20
merit and rewards those<BR>> > who consistently outperform the =
group while=20
providing<BR>> > incentive/motivation<BR>> > for the bottom=20
performers to consider other career options.<BR>> <BR>> This =
technique is=20
fraught with problems. Can any of you guess some of<BR>> =
them?<BR>>=20
<BR>> FW<BR>> <BR>> * To join/leave the list, search archives, =
change=20
list settings, *<BR>> * etc., please visit </FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html</FONT></A><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2> *<BR>> </FONT></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_20DD_01C2B8AD.07EB0150--
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
