11 replies (most recent on top)
@1pqc+1rQCr8JH - LOL. Obviously you are not a math person or know anything on how to create a successful company. "bottom 10% - annually" has been proven to be the worst any company can do. It has been studied extensively at business schools and in experienced in action. A company can remove "dead weight" without having the stupid a-s 10%.
Go read the WSJ on the legacy of Jack Welch. Even WSJ who is very much a pro-business pro-management has ripped him apart and practically called him the worst American business leader in modern time with a profound negative impact on the US economy.
Still paying the price from smart redesign.
Every company should get rid of the bottom 10% - annually. A lot of the people on this forum would have been let go a lot sooner. And some of the dead weight that has managed to hang around and hold us down would be long gone, too.
Jack Welch was a fan of letting go of the bottom 10% of performers. That’s not what Ford does. They eliminate the people who will save them the most money long term. That typically results in eliminating experienced higher performers because they get bigger raises and end up with higher salaries. It also eliminates people who still have a pension and are approaching a pension bump. To round it out they throw in a handful of lower performers and younger employees so they can’t be sued for age discrimination.
@coa+1rQCr8JH: Jac Nasser was also a big fan of Jack Welch, and most of us who visit this site know what a complete disaster Nasser was as president and CEO of Ford.
@coa+1rQCr8JH - You are spot-on about Jack Welch. He (and his fan-base) destroyed more companies than anyone could imagine.
Just this weekend, there was a big article about Boeing. One of the comments from a reader was brilliant: "What a clown show. All these executives are certainly worth their high paychecks!!?? Destroy a company, still receive millions. The Jack Welch style of management continues on."
What in the world does everyone think the "People" objective is all about? It's the number 1 objective for a couple of reasons - 1) they let people go that they should have retained, causing a LOT of churn that is still causing problems, and, 2) they need to right-size again to address costs, including the new UAW contract, but they need to do it with more consideration this time around or they'll only introduce more churn and more problems.
People who fall through the cracks and get jobs they aren't supposed to have need to have some kind of consequences. It's how it's done that will be the deciding factor as to if it's done right and is consequential. All for trimming the herd...not nepotism on the other hand.
DF is a big fan of Jack Welch, so we can expect bottom 10% to be gone on an annual basis. It is expected to motivate the remaining 90%. Good luck Doug!
Talent Review + Mid Year PRs = Next round of cuts