Creator of the new group mentioned here...<p>My opinion is this. PIP is needed. URA projections are needed, but need revised and reformed. The question remains..is how should either be implemented. I think URA metrics should be nothing more than a suggestion of what's likely the case. Example?<p>Say Amazon has 1.5M employees. URA hypothetically set to 6%, Currently, That's 90,000 employees worldwide who would be considered underperformers and should be eliminated. To me, that is absurd.<p>How I think it should be carried out. Lower URA to 3%, 35,000 total employees. Change URA to "Underperformance Risk". There's a good chance 3% of employees are indeed underperformers. However the question remains..how are we targeting such? Warehouse associate tracking is easy. They make up the majority. Non WHA folks is a bit harder. So we need to focus on their accomplishments, ticket resolution, other verifiable data which can attribute to their performance. I.E.<p>- How many of their resolved issues needed reopened due to misdiagnosis?<p>- How many unsuccessful attempts to resolution of an issue? If unsuccessful, are there attempts made to properly escalate and learn from such failed attempt?<p>Projects that required rework or additional assistance?<p>Manager direct report attrition?<p>Thing is, requiring a certain percentage to be let go is absurd. Maintaining a target percentage of employees to identify at risk of underperforming is more ideal IMO. Then figure out a way to identify genuine underperformers, and actually make the attempt to get them to improve. Also, give underperformers a chance a one time chance to relocate, down-level, or find a role which best fits their demonstrated skill set.<p>We need to eliminate the fact that a Manager can unilaterally request a Focus entry. They can accomplish this by simply ommitting certain accomplishments of affected employees via OLR, therefore making them look less than ideal. Also, Peer feedback is terrible. If they're your peer, chances are they'll be looking to promote. You're competition to them. It's human nature.
We need to emphasize stakeholder and those who are a level higher..their feedback on the performance of an employee. Peer feedback should only be used as a way to Guage whether the Bar is at the right threshold for such level/role.
We are a hypersensitive Data collection organization. There's no reason other than acts of God where we can't accomplish such. Additionally, I am human, and my ideas aren't perfect. That's why I created this group. To show the absurdity and encourage a channel for those involved to express their experiences, concerns or ideas for improvement.