Ran across a cool software startup, JuvodHR.com. Helps small and medium size firms manage their workforce for a very very low price.

Akin to “network effects” within the HR part of the organization.

Oh, I have told people in a meeting……Your attitude???? You can put that in a box with the rest of your shit and leave right now.

Understand. I have had people tell me why they think I am the stupidest M’fer in the world with reason. No issue. I have had people tell me that I had no clue and here is why. No issue.

But not be a team player and just give tons of attitude. Yup.

Screw up something I say don’t screw up, you are gone before the Christmas Party and your wife comes in and gives me a personalized blanket for my baby she was going to give me the next day? Yup.

Play politics and try and foment office gossip?? Yup.

If you give somebody one minute after you know they are not working out you’ve given them a minute to screw you.

I have fired many people. Not had them “not work out”, Not “asked them to leave” Fire them which is what I did.

.
I do not disagree with what you say. There is no reason to delay a firing for any reason. The blog post counsels fire QUICK.

I do think that very few companies have an effective Performance Appraisal system. Some of the most important questions that should be faced are:

Should I expect to be fired in the next 30, 60, 90 days?
Should I expect to be promoted in the next 30, 60, 90 days?

I have not had to fire of folks in my business career but I have told a few to pack their bags in this manner.

My comments are also intended for consumption for slightly larger companies — perhaps 250+ employees. They area also not intended to suggest a time will never come when nobody needs to be fired based on the bottom 5%.

I want to identify the bottom 5% and evaluate them discretely. Perhaps that examination reveals everyone is just fine.

BRC
.

The problem is making it an annual practice with a target:

1. If you suck you are gone now. Not at a set date.
2. Saying I am going to get rid of 1 out of 20 means you might as well say politics is more important than performance. I better hire somebody shitty because I have to get rid of one.

That is why I hate rank and yank.

.
Your observation about getting rid of the worst performers and thereby increasing the overall operational performance is true. I have seen and done it a lot of times. A good annual practice would be to fire the bottom 5% until everyone is an all star.

The top guys cannot give more and thus when you get rid of the low performers the average performance is elevated. This is simple arithmetic.

Motivation and inspiration and management and leadership is often most effective in the middle of any organization — again the top performers are already in overdrive — where there is room for improvement.

All performance needs to evaluated once or twice a year based on the assignment and attainment of specific objectives. When this is done, the actual performance allows folks to fire themselves. People know when they are not performing.

BRC
.

However, I do believe that an organization performs around one or two levels above its worst performers, so if you get rid of really sub par performers, everyone else’s performance improves, conversely if you don’t everybody’s performance gets worse.

Why is this? Everyone to some extent at some level knows they have to perform better than the worst if they clearly are not the worst that’s ok.

Yes, people should always strive to perform their best and that should be innate but let me provide a personal example:

I belong to the Knights of Columbus a fraternal catholic charity. I would love to say I’m the best Knight, but I clearly am not. However, I make sure I am better than the worst. When I am washing dishes after a fish fry I do the best job I can, but I do not make all of the meetings, etc, etc.

.
Haha, good one, Elijah!

BRC
.