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 *