A mandated curve makes no sense for a job environment; a good manager will make sure that all of her staff are meeting or exceeding goals (or manage them out of that job). And she's supposed to then randomly pick people to claim are not? Nonsense.

Eh. The thing is the distribution can't be measured at the local team level, because it obviously gets into that kind of stuff pretty quick. You can't take a team of 10 and plot along the curve. But you can do it at a broader level.

But we actually use a similar distribution at a department or service line level. I'm not sure where the lines are but it's something like 10-20-40-20-10, and the explicit expectation is that those in the lower two quadrants need to be managed up or out. Pay goes along with that with pretty heavy weighting - dollars available for bonuses and increases are split 0 - 0 - 30 - 30 - 40. So by far the bulk of it goes to the top performers, rather than a peanut butter distribution of COLA. [Making up those numbers again, I'm not sure exactly.]

It does require a bit of a shift in thinking. On our measures Meets Expectations is actually a ranking for a strong and steady performer, not a do-my-target-tasks-and-go-home, and it's a higher bar to get that the longer you are in your role or the higher you are in the organization. And that your evaluation is based on how well you met expectations compared to your peers. That's where the distribution on the curve really shows up.

But that sort of thing has to be absolutely, 100% clear from the get go. It needs to be part of how you understand your job. It really has to be part of your culture. Not something that gets announced at review time.

Also it's near midnight and I'm reading research reports on office market absorption rates in Argentina. So I may be a little nutso. (To be clear I'm doing it because I have to, not just for kicks.)

But we actually use a similar distribution at a department or service line level. I'm not sure where the lines are but it's something like 10-20-40-20-10, and the explicit expectation is that those in the lower two quadrants need to be managed up or out. Pay goes along with that with pretty heavy weighting - dollars available for bonuses and increases are split 0 - 0 - 30 - 30 - 40. So by far the bulk of it goes to the top performers, rather than a peanut butter distribution of COLA.

It does require a bit of a shift in thinking. On our measures Meets Expectations is actually a ranking for a strong and steady performer, not a do-my-target-tasks-and-go-home, and it's a higher bar to get that the longer you are in your role or the higher you are in the organization. And that your evaluation is based on how well you met expectations compared to your peers. That's where the distribution on the curve really shows up.

Which is easier for assigning bonuses, but doesn't mean it's particularly fair. It's arbitrary, and if you've got a highly performing or long-term staff you're just fucking with them, clearly outlined expectations or not. [link]

That study is very focused on downsizing companies and layoffs though.

I don't think it works or is right for every company, by any means. We have a pretty strong broker eat what you kill history/mindset as well as a fairly mobile industry. I think this reflects that.

I do wish there was a way to decouple the performance rating from the ranking that impacts pay though. Because that does end up muddying things a lot. And that really can demoralize. If a manager felt a 3.5 was appropriate, but the calibrations process bumped that person into a lower tier, does the score go to a 2.5? Does it need to?

I am reminded of my friend who was in the business school (in undergrad) and how she dreaded easy tests, because everything was graded on a curve, so when everyone did well, a 95% became a C or whatever.

Heh.

I should note that my specific role is one that by its nature really requires that kind of mentality anyway. There's a lot of visibility and a lot of demand for taking on more responsibility etc. So it works out pretty well for us, generally speaking. Things might look pretty different in other roles. If working late nights was driven just by needing to demonstrate what a go-getter you are, rather than for any real business need eg. That kind of meaningless rat race expectation sucks, and happens too often.

My thumbs really hate wielding a paintbrush. And apparently all other repetitive motions associated with staining, because even the left one is cranky.

Also, I think the stain fumes (or possibly the project-fueled mania that is my evenings) make for some whackass dreams.

My undergrad psych prof devoted a whole lecture to Why This Class is Not Graded on a Curve (engineering classes generally were, because averages of 35 were not uncommon).

Speaking of work, I just thought, "Oh, phew -- thank goodness it's not Friday yet." That is not correct! I mean, it is in that I have more to get done before mid-day on Friday than I can do in the next couple of hours, BUT STILL.