Corporate Culling - Jack Welch (of GE fame) - Fire 10% of the workforce every year?

[M Greenaway]

I read an article yesterday where Jack Welch (of GE fame) was quoted as saying that every year an organisation should sack the bottom 10% of the organisation.

The article said little about how the 10% was determined.

Anyone out there support this theory ?

[Atul Khandekar]

Difficult to say without reading the original article. Did it mention any criteria or just an arbitrary numbet of 10%.

Did he say with or without replacement?

[M Greenaway]

No it didnt mention criteria - just a bland 'worst performers' statement.

The article wasnt talking about downsizing, so clearly re-hiring of 10% of the workforce would be required to maintain the status quo.

[Michael T]

Jack Welsh has put his foot in it this time. What a crock! Has this guy never heard of Deming's Red Bead experiement?

Let's just suppose we get rid of the bottom 10%. For arguement's sake, we'll say we didn't replace them because we are trying to run lean.

Okay... 100 employees - *POOF* 10 are gone - C'ya, thanks for playing.

90 employees left. Next year rolls around - absolutely nothing has changed... for this little exercise, we are going to keep things constant. Those employees who WERE good enough to make it into the top 90 percent, now 9 find themselves - through no fault of their own (remember, nothing has changes - their work hasn't changed, their output hasn't changed, the tools they use to create the output hasn't changed) out on the street. *POOF*

81 employees left. Next year rolls around - absolutely nothing has changed... again... Now, those employees who were squarely in the middle 40% (okay - more towards the lower half of the middle - but in the middle none-the-less) find their heads on the chopping block. WHAT HAS CHANGED? Nothing!!! *POOF* 8 more employees gone. 27 employees in total gone - 17 of whom were good enough for the first cut but are now without a job.

Have I pointed out the tragic flaw in this logic yet? I haven't even begun to address what objective? criteria might be used to determine who is in the bottom 10%. The author of the article got close....

Anyone else wanna play with this one?

[Kevin Mader]

Jack is a foolish man. And for the record, he was quoted saying this many times and in many places. In interviews, he boasts of this tactic. What is worse, copycat executives see this/hear this and think that he must be right. Afterall, Wall Street practically touts him as the Second Coming.

Red Beads this man needs, but his arrogance will not allow him to find out he has been wrong. Jack has done more to set us back than to bring us forward with that type of logic.

Kevin

Michael,

Don't hold back, just speak your mind!!!!

Love it

There is another danger: that fear of being in the bottom 10 per cent will encourage reluctance to stand out from the crowd. Company recruitment advertisements incessantly demand "out of the box thinking". But who is more likely to come up with innovative ideas? Is it the raucous group that discusses the same television programs every morning, drinks together every night and heads off en masse to play in the chairman's golf challenge each spring? Or are new ideas more likely to come from Joe in the corner, who does not say much, does not know a birdie from a bunker but can sort out all his software glitches without bothering the help desk? And who is more likely to be labeled a C?

To me, this sums it up. Unless you adapt and become "one of the boys", you're history. I once worked for company with 12,000 employees. At lunch time, all the Quality Engineers would take lunch with the boss and play cards, socialize, etc..I chose to enjoy my lunch at my desk. Having been in the Military, I have had enough eating with the masses. Another nuisance was having to listen to the Supervisor relate what he did over the weekend. Everybody would stop working and give him 100% attention. Me, being a "C", would keep working and occasionally nod my head to let him know that I was listening. Who cares what you did last night? Well, our first layoff consisted of 400 employees, with me being one of them. No other Quality Engineer was affected. It wasn't the Quality of work performed. It was because of preferring to act differently than the group. (Plus making more than any of them as a Senior QE) Overt fawning stifles individuality. Working for a company of 45 employees, with no apparent "C"'s, you are rewarded for keeping your nose to the grindstone and refraining from non productive "group" activities such as mentioned. Careful research is conducted before hiring. The "employment at will" policy in this state allows a company to discharge you any time without reason, so everybody understands that you must produce or you're gone. Mr Welch, in my opinion, should be thankful he has thousands of employees to turn on each other to determine who is an A,B, or C. Besides making for good reading, I don't think that there is a shred of proof that this 10% thing works. There are many reasons for success. Like lucrative contracts and politicians in your pocket.

[Ken K]

Unfortunately, this is more of a reality than you might think. Our company, in it's ultimate wisdom, plays this game a few weeks before Christmas. Has been for the last three years.
Don't want to go into it, but this last year two salaried people were singled out and poof...they were gone. No real reason given, just a slight adjustment in the amount of faces roaming the plant.
Meetings have already begun on the "list". I think they just flip a coin and too bad for you if it doesn't fall your way.


And they wonder why the hell nobody feels the need to do a good days work.