feedback

Microsoft, GE, and forced ranking systems

by amiel · Sep 25, 2013

A month ago, Steve Ballmer announced he would be stepping down as CEO of Microsoft within a year. This led to a flurry of commentary about why he’s leaving and what this means for the company. Many cited an article in Vanity Fair to detail what went wrong. I wrote about this article and Microsoft in a section of my book about forced ranking systems for performance management. Here is an edited excerpt of what I wrote:

A classic expression of fear-based culture is employee performance management, particularly the type that ranks people against each other. GE has used such a system for years and done quite well as a company. However, it’s not clear whether their success is because or in spite of forced ranking. If you work at GE, your manager places you in one of three categories: high performer (the top 20%), middle performer (the middle 70%), or low performer (the bottom 10%). If you’re a low performer, you get removed or improved. Sounds like meritocracy at its best, right? Not really. As USC management professor, John Boudreau, points out:

Is removing or improving the bottom 10 percent valuable in all cases? Certainly in some situations even the bottom 10 percent are doing an adequate job and are doing better than those who could be hired or promoted. By definition, continually removing or improving the bottom 10 percent will make the bottom 10 percent more similar to the middle 70 percent and thus make removing the bottom 10 percent less effective in improving workforce quality.

My Assessment, Your Assessment [April 2012]

by amiel · Nov 30, 2012

I’d like to introduce you to one of my favorite games. It’s one with a few simple rules and many winners. The best time to play this game is when you find yourself in a conversation with people who see things differently from you. It’s particularly useful when you feel triggered by these differences.

The game is called “My Assessment, Your Assessment.” It goes like this:

Rules

Name the conversation. Just as it’s useful on a tennis court to know whether you are rallying or playing a match, it’s useful in conversation to know it’s nature. Are you here purely to argue or to understand each other’s perspectives? Assuming it’s the latter, kick things off by saying, “I’d like to have a conversation about___. First I’d like to hear your assessment and what’s behind it. Then I’d like to tell you mine and how I came to it. Sound good?”
Listen for other people’s assessments. When they’re talking, think to yourself, “This is their assessment. Hmmm…I wonder what is behind it.” Note how different this is from interpreting others’ words as a “truth” with which you then must agree or disagree. The repeated act of doing this actually helps us differentiate from others, which is a very fine move toward mutual respect.
Hear the signal through the noise. Only a small percentage of people are truly gifted at describing and grounding their assessments crisply and without defensiveness. The rest of us stumble a bit. There is a lot of noise. Listen for the signal, i.e. the assessment. Assume the best in others by interpreting even the most blatant acts of bloviation as assessments worth learning more about.
Acknowledge and request clarification about others’ assessments. “I hear your assessment is that_____. I imagine you’ve put a lot of thinking behind this. Could you help me understand it better?” The idea here is to invite others’ to ground their assessments. This serves two purposes: (1) You learn what is behind their thinking and (2) They often learn what is behind their thinking.
Describe your perspective as my assessment or my take or my side of the story. “Thanks for explaining that to me. Now I’d like to give you my take and how I came to it.” Walk them through your reasoning. Even if it seems obvious to you (and it usually does!) it may be surprising, even revelatory, to others.
When in doubt, feel your feet on the ground and take two deep breaths. This is a good rule for all games.

Real Time Feedback for Busy Leaders [February 2012]

by amiel · Nov 28, 2012

Warning: this issue contains ideas that may be hazardous to your leadership blind spots.

According to leadership research, 70 percent of what we learn comes from on-the-job experience. People who elevate their leadership capacity do so by taking on challenging assignments that teach them the lessons they need to learn to guide their organizations into the future. And they learn–really learn–from those experiences.

How an individual best learns depends on many factors, but one practice that works well across the board is receiving specific, requested, ongoing and real-time feedback from a rich variety of competent observers. Such feedback allows leaders to see things they cannot see on their own, expand their perspective, gauge their progress in better leveraging their strengths and improving on their “Achilles Heel” weakness, and enroll others as allies. Let’s break these words down: [Read more…] about Real Time Feedback for Busy Leaders [February 2012]