Gold Sacks - Cull begins (again)

[crankedup]

They are dripping with money of course, but this is not stopping them from cutting out 5000 jobs from the work force, or 5% of staff. Just the beginning?

[anonymous-user]

They do it every year. Non-story.

[loafer123]

They get rid of the bottom 5% of performers every year.

Every company should do it. And the public sector too.

[davepoth]

loafer123 said:

They get rid of the bottom 5% of performers every year.

Every company should do it. And the public sector too.

Depends on the business really - and definitely on whether the correct performance metrics are in place.

[loafer123]

davepoth said:

Depends on the business really - and definitely on whether the correct performance metrics are in place.

Judging by some of the mouth-breathers I deal with at call centres and councils, lack-of-performance metrics shouldn't be too hard to demonstrate.

[Jasandjules]

davepoth said:

Depends on the business really - and definitely on whether the correct performance metrics are in place.

Do you, perchance, work in the public sector?

It's just I've never worked in the Public sector but in my working life I've always found it easy to look at the 5% (and more!) of people who I would terminate. As a rule, people who are s**t at their jobs, lazy, useless or incompetent are easy to spot.....

[Mojooo]

Jasandjules said:

Do you, perchance, work in the public sector?

It's just I've never worked in the Public sector but in my working life I've always found it easy to look at the 5% (and more!) of people who I would terminate. As a rule, people who are s**t at their jobs, lazy, useless or incompetent are easy to spot.....

I work in the public sector and for a lot of people in our department its not that easy to measure what we have done because its more down to the quality of service we provide. Obviously it will show up if we are making mistakes but aside from that its not really that easily possible to measure the output unless someone spends a severe amount of time looking through what we have done on an individual basis.

Of course you can 'just tell' who the lazy ones are but to use it against them you would have to spend a fair bit of time putting a case together.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Mojooo said:

Of course you can 'just tell' who the lazy ones are but to use it against them you would have to spend a fair bit of time putting a case together.

Oh dear, the old "you can't sack useless people" myth.

The whole sorry situation is summed up by the appalling sickness absence record of the public sector. For some reason state employees seem to feel entitled to take more time off,

"While overall sickness absence had fallen over the last decade, it remained higher in the public
sector than in the private sector. In the final quarter of 2010, 3.1 per cent of public sector
employees were absent from work, compared with only 2.3 per cent of private sector employees."

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/sick0211.pdf

On the other hand that macho drivel about losing the bottom 5% is pitifully inept.

[whoami]

crankedup said:

They are dripping with money of course, but this is not stopping them from cutting out 5000 jobs from the work force, or 5% of staff. Just the beginning?

Keep trying.

[Mojooo]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Oh dear, the old "you can't sack useless people" myth.

Thats not really what I said was though was it?

I said collating the evidence to show who the best performers are was difficult to do *in my department*

Sacking useless people is of course possible as long as the will is there by the management and you have clear guidance on what constitutes good and poor quality output.

[whoami]

Mojooo said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

Oh dear, the old "you can't sack useless people" myth.

Thats not really what I said was though was it?

I said collating the evidence to show who the best performers are was difficult to do *in my department*

Sacking useless people is of course possible as long as the will is there by the management and you have clear guidance on what constitutes good and poor quality output.

why is that difficult in your department?

[Mojooo]

whoami said:

Mojooo said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

Oh dear, the old "you can't sack useless people" myth.

Thats not really what I said was though was it?

I said collating the evidence to show who the best performers are was difficult to do *in my department*

Sacking useless people is of course possible as long as the will is there by the management and you have clear guidance on what constitutes good and poor quality output.

why is that difficult in your department?

Because as someone else alluded to you need decent performance indicators and in our department that would take a lot of effort as it is not obvious to see unless the person is making big cock ups.

I am not saying it cannot be done, but its not necessarily as easy as many other jobs where you have easily quantifable targets.

[whoami]

Mojooo said:

whoami said:

Mojooo said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

Oh dear, the old "you can't sack useless people" myth.

Thats not really what I said was though was it?

I said collating the evidence to show who the best performers are was difficult to do *in my department*

Sacking useless people is of course possible as long as the will is there by the management and you have clear guidance on what constitutes good and poor quality output.

why is that difficult in your department?

Because as someone else alluded to you need decent performance indicators and in our department that would take a lot of effort as it is not obvious to see unless the person is making big cock ups.

I am not saying it cannot be done, but its not necessarily as easy as many other jobs where you have easily quantifable targets.

Anything can be measured.

[Mojooo]

whoami said:

Mojooo said:

whoami said:

Mojooo said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

Oh dear, the old "you can't sack useless people" myth.

Thats not really what I said was though was it?

I said collating the evidence to show who the best performers are was difficult to do *in my department*

Sacking useless people is of course possible as long as the will is there by the management and you have clear guidance on what constitutes good and poor quality output.

why is that difficult in your department?

Because as someone else alluded to you need decent performance indicators and in our department that would take a lot of effort as it is not obvious to see unless the person is making big cock ups.

I am not saying it cannot be done, but its not necessarily as easy as many other jobs where you have easily quantifable targets.

Anything can be measured.

I never said it couldn't.

[mrmr96]

Open question, would you judge a person on their input or output? That is to say do you judge them on their effort or their achievements?

[grumbledoak]

5% lowest performers each year. Do you think that is news to anyone there?

[whoami]

Mojooo said:

whoami said:

Mojooo said:

whoami said:

Mojooo said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

Oh dear, the old "you can't sack useless people" myth.

Thats not really what I said was though was it?

I said collating the evidence to show who the best performers are was difficult to do *in my department*

Sacking useless people is of course possible as long as the will is there by the management and you have clear guidance on what constitutes good and poor quality output.

why is that difficult in your department?

Because as someone else alluded to you need decent performance indicators and in our department that would take a lot of effort as it is not obvious to see unless the person is making big cock ups.

I am not saying it cannot be done, but its not necessarily as easy as many other jobs where you have easily quantifable targets.

Anything can be measured.

I never said it couldn't.

So the problem is, what?

[Mojooo]

whoami said:

Mojooo said:

whoami said:

Mojooo said:

whoami said:

Mojooo said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

Oh dear, the old "you can't sack useless people" myth.

Thats not really what I said was though was it?

I said collating the evidence to show who the best performers are was difficult to do *in my department*

Sacking useless people is of course possible as long as the will is there by the management and you have clear guidance on what constitutes good and poor quality output.

why is that difficult in your department?

Because as someone else alluded to you need decent performance indicators and in our department that would take a lot of effort as it is not obvious to see unless the person is making big cock ups.

I am not saying it cannot be done, but its not necessarily as easy as many other jobs where you have easily quantifable targets.

Anything can be measured.

I never said it couldn't.

So the problem is, what?

Because from the crux of what we do its not always easy to have PI's comparable against other people. Every issue we deal with is different and will have a different outcome. Therefore it can be difficult to compare people when you are trying to find your 5% to sack.

[Murph7355]

Mojooo said:

Because from the crux of what we do its not always easy to have PI's comparable against other people. Every issue we deal with is different and will have a different outcome. Therefore it can be difficult to compare people when you are trying to find your 5% to sack.

Which then takes you back to "everything can be measured"...

If the people at various levels of management cannot readily put these sorts of thing in place, then they ought to be the first ones in the 5% band.

If you cannot measure the value an individual adds to an organisation, there's a pretty good chance they didn't ought to be there at all.

[whoami]

Mojooo said:

Because from the crux of what we do its not always easy to have PI's comparable against other people. Every issue we deal with is different and will have a different outcome. Therefore it can be difficult to compare people when you are trying to find your 5% to sack.

You have st management then.

Which is not entirely surprising.