> My problem with Jack Welch's "vitality curve" is that it assumes a certain distribution of performance is immutable. It assumes a static world in which 20% deserve to be promoted and rewarded, 10% deserve to be fired, 70% are good where they are.
Once your organization is large enough, a pretty reasonable case can be made that this distribution remains constant (although in fairness, the argument isn't that 10% deserved to be fired, it's that 10% are underperforming, and you need to quickly determine if that is going to change). It's undoubtedly NOT precise or immutable, but it is probably closer to "correct" than what happens without such practices in place.
> But once you've gotten rid of your deadweight, now you're firing half-decent people who just haven't "clicked" yet.
You are assuming no hiring, acquisitions, and changes in your business that change the value of employee work. That is the typical image of a large, lumbering conglomerate, and part of the point of codifying the practice is to force the organization to step out of the myth.
Once your organization is large enough, a pretty reasonable case can be made that this distribution remains constant (although in fairness, the argument isn't that 10% deserved to be fired, it's that 10% are underperforming, and you need to quickly determine if that is going to change). It's undoubtedly NOT precise or immutable, but it is probably closer to "correct" than what happens without such practices in place.
> But once you've gotten rid of your deadweight, now you're firing half-decent people who just haven't "clicked" yet.
You are assuming no hiring, acquisitions, and changes in your business that change the value of employee work. That is the typical image of a large, lumbering conglomerate, and part of the point of codifying the practice is to force the organization to step out of the myth.