Posted on 11/23/2023 3:54:03 AM PST by Cecily
Jack Dorsey has announced sweeping changes to his new tech venture Block - including doing away with performance improvement plans.
Three weeks ago, the firm announced it would slash hundreds of workers over the next year to get the headcount down to 12,000 - as much as a 10 percent cut.
The company owns Square, whose Square Register system powers iPad checkout screens at restaurants and cafes that prompt customers to tip.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Where I worked, everyone had a performance improvement plan as a matter of policy.
It was a pain in the arse trying to think up some kind of way to do better with definable and measurable goals.
I was a supervisor so I had to think up these plans for both myself and my subordinates.
It ends up being just another make work policy. You go through the motions just to satisfy your superiors.
Dorsey was the Twitter CEO twit that hired all those H1B foreigners, underlings and bigwigs combined, who created the conservative suppression pogrom there. Rife with leftist liberals by the end.
Seems like he’s back to something that just makes money for providing a service. But to tell you the truth, I don’t wish him well at it. There’s still lots of rancor and damage leftover at the last business he ruined.
Sounds like Jack Dorsey is channeling Jack Welch.
Yes, there’s the HiPots, and then there’s everyone else (fodder for “layoffs” e.g. culling).
Or Musk after watching how Elon trimmed Dorsey's former company.
Translation: Dorsey hired a lot of spoiled brats who can’t produce. Towards the end of my career in IT, my employer hired kids to reduce salaries. They couldn’t complete tasks and couldn’t fix anything. They were awful at problem solving. The difference between the competence and attitude of senior staff and kids was immense.
Yes, though Welch long had a practice of forcing his managers to cut the bottom 10% of performers at GE each year.
and here I was led to believe that the ideal of the leftist was to make everybody equal. you know, the ones who can’t or won’t do the hard work are carried by those who can and do the hard work...you know, to make things more fair.
Motorola adopted such policies in its dying days before cutting itself up and selling itself off.
Why can’t he quietly get rid of the underperformers instead of publicly demoralizing everyone? All the employees did not make the bad hiring decisions.
Ders no hoping doz whose not inclined to support a common cause.
That includes the leaving of a tip on the table which now is better put in the hand of the waiter rather than left to the table runners.
Someone is channelling Jack Welch!
When people suddenly disappear, the staff gets paranoid and wonder why. If you publicly say that under performers will be canned, the staff will feel more secure.
Ha—I remember Motorola!
Cutting the bottom 10% is ultimately a stupid and short sighted practice.
For one thing, human performance varies considerably for each individual year over year. A great employee will go through a rough patch. A total slacker ends up in the right place and time and looks like a genius.
Beyond that, it is a documented, observed fact that cutting the bottom performers causes top performers (who can easily land another job) to re-evaluate their own jobs. It creates the perception among all workers that their jobs are temporary prompting them too seek a more permanent position. The top performers seldom recognize how good they are because of the Dunnig-Krueger effect.
Finally, it simply does nothing to improve the overall quality of the workforce. You are always needing to hire to replace the 10% you just fired. The ones you fired knew your products, procedures, office politics,etc. Quite often the new folks will be worse performers than the bottom 10% you had just because of the deficit in knowledge and experience.
On top of that, people looking for a job will know there is a 10% chance they will be fired in any given year. A job offer from almost anyone else will always be more attractive so the only people who will go to work for those companies in the first place are the people who can’t get any other job offers in the first place.
Those who perceive themselves not to be near the bottom 10% aren’t so worried and those who do are less likely to apply, but I agree—it creates a toxic work environment.
In my opinion, they were unfair since you could have a great relationship with a boss over the years, then end up working for another one who was a total jerk, which was reflected in his evaluation of you.
I hear you except I can double down as I worked for the government. Not having a profit or productivity concern ironically the performance improvement plans became the top priority of upper management. So much so that the process and procedures completely changed every 3 to 4 years. Make work indeed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.