Hey I liked this article.
"The classic example is the mandatory review quota policy used
by such luminary corporations as Microsoft, Amazon, and Washington
Mutual.
Basically, the system works like this: the employees are graded
on a bell curve. In any given team, some percentage (we'll say 20%)
MUST be given a bad review, regardless of performance.
...
So, let's review:
http://www.monkeytreats.com/2005/09/19/stupid-vs-evil-part-duh/
The most troubling thing about the Stupid vs. Evil metric is
that, if you rate a bunch of companies according to this metric,
and then you correlate that to public opinion of the company, you
will find that the public generally considers Stupid to be worse
than Evil. In other words, if you make shitloads of money, a little
bit of bunny-boiling is acceptable.
It seems to me that this should be reversed. In particular, when
considering a course of action, it seems that it should be more
important to not be evil than not be stupid. Assuming that we live
in an ethical society, wouldn't the right way around be to evaluate
an action's evilness before you even consider whether it's stupid
or not?
The classic example is the mandatory review quota policy used by
such luminary corporations as Microsoft, Amazon, and Washington
Mutual.
Basically, the system works like this: the employees are graded
on a bell curve. In any given team, some percentage (we'll say 20%)
MUST be given a bad review, regardless of performance.
In theory, this should result in the worst-performing employees
losing compensation, while the highly-performing employees gain
compensation. Eventually, the theory goes, the less-useful
employees will head off for less-ambitious pastures, removing the
dead weight from the bottom. More pressure will then be brought to
bear on the higher-performing employees, incentivizing them to work
even harder, and the organization will iteratively move toward a
lean and mean ideal.
The problem is that this turns out to be bullshit. First of all,
teamwork is out the window. Why are you going to help someone else
if it means they'll get a better review and you'll get screwed?
Better to spend that time kissing the boss' ass, talking shit about
your coworkers, and avoiding any kind of difficult project.
Second, the people at the low-end aren't necessarily going to be
shuffled off. The thing is, you need those people to stay around,
because otherwise who will you stick with the bad review?
Ultimately, that end of the totem pole will be filled with people
who are plainly incompetent and despondent, lacking the strength of
will to quit and tell the company to stuff it.
Third, your truly high-performing employees are not necessarily
going to be mindless participants in this system. Some of them will
consider this unethical, and look for jobs at companies that aren't
so draconian. Some of them will develop friendships with people who
get crushed by the system, and will lose morale as a result. Others
may feel that they could be more successful at a company that truly
compensated performance, rather than using a quota.
So, let's review:
It probably will take a few years for the damage to become
clear, and in the meanwhile you'll have some cost savings, so the
HR hatchetperson who came up with the policy looks like a rock
star. They get a fat bonus, quit before the long-term debt comes
due, and leave the squabbling masses to fight over the scraps as
the ship goes down.
In other words, this plan is Evil, and it is Stupid. Now, it's
not Stupid on the face of it. You can see why this plan would
appeal if you didn't really think through the ramifications of it —
it seems like it ought to get rid of bad workers and reward the
good ones. But it is plainly, obviously Evil. People who don't
deserve it are going to be screwed. That's how the plan is designed
to work.
Given that, shouldn't someone in charge have taken one look and
said, "We can't do this. It's Evil"? Even if it was the most
brilliant plan in the world, it relies on being profoundly shitty
to people. It conflicts with the most basic principles of human
decency.
And, given that, what kind of sympathy can we have for these
corporations? Stupid is forgivable on occasion; people make Stupid
mistakes all the time. Stupidity is not intentional.
Evil only comes through conscious choice. And if a corporation
consciously decides to go down the Evil path, only to find that
that path was also the Stupid choice?
Well, then it's hard to have much pity.
