Corporate HR, based on actual thinking unlike the Twitter author who seems based on ego. The reason for this is there's a lot embedded about what 'A', 'C', 'E' mean, and that's different for different people. Using specific terminology (somewhat) mitigates this.
'Average' is also 'Effective'. If the organisation's hiring most people at the right level, that's the way it should be, right?
[An organisational pat on the back that its employees are effective. And then whole business lines get cut, because they're not effective. But the employees are, correct? Blinkered into effectively obeying. That's different from the OP.]
Consistently getting 'exceptional' or 'outstanding' is a problem for your manager because it means they've hired you at the wrong level. Whether this is a problem for you depends on your manager.
It's not all in a name, it's how you think about it. That the author of the post deflates 'Effective' to 'C', which means overall able but lacking in in some areas, identifies something's off. Enough to make me run a mile from any association with this company.
Further, something wrong with the employee conversation. Given a job specification and reasonable leadership communication, having someone surprised means they've been working with the wrong goals, and that's leadership's problem. It happens, I've been there, and then you reverse it, however Tweeting it as a bragging point is lost on me as leadership communication.
Consistently getting 'exceptional' is actually a very easy problem to solve…
Just promote that person to a higher grade, with increased expectations (w.r.t. sphere of influence), but zero change to compensation or assigned tasks!
They will no longer receive exceptional ratings nor occupy a larger slice of the bonus pool. And the manager gets to “check the box” for fostering employe development.
Later, when that employee leaves for greener pastures, you get a free pass for the next round of layoffs!
> The reason for this is there's a lot embedded about what 'A', 'C', 'E' mean, and that's different for different people
100% agree - the expectation setting about promos and big bonuses only coming to those who exceed expectations is frankly fine, but it's obvious that the intent of the letter-grade analogy is to imply an expectation (and evoke the associated anxiety) that there's going to be a paternalistic, we're-disappointed-and-you-should-be-too discussion for a 'C'.
Not sure what the letter grade means in this context. “C’s get degrees.” So… “C level work”(sic) should mean the employee is fine, will remain, is performing adequately or is on average well average.
If it means the person is at risk of being let go that’s an intense work environment and they should just modify the job description to mention that one should be “innovating within the framework” or whatever management bs he was pushing.
Wow. Between the problematic grind culture that conflates "you have only live to serve the shareholders and take no personal time" with "you're valuable", and his constant "you fail at reading comprehension" and circling his own tweets in screenshots a million times and "math is not your strong suit huh, I look forward to giving you your next tutorial" responses, I feel really bad for anyone who is stuck working with this Kirkland Signature Elon Musk.
These are great receipts for Glassdoor or something to help warn folks away from the toxic "company owns your life" culture he's pushing at his rando startup.
Hopefully high interest rates kill this persons startup. The tech industry should remember that in its embrace of open source, it also should embrace left wing politics (Stallman, Chomsky et al are prolific Green Party voters), including worker protections and at least attempting to have some form of “worker self management”.
Folks like this in different eras literally motivated communist revolutions
This person doesn't want to pay bonuses. "Meets all requirements with excellence" is an A. Anything above and beyond and creates something new for the company that saves or makes money is a bonus. That's how it works in the manufacturing industry.
“Now, it's up to you whether or not you want to just do the bare minimum. Well, like Brian, for example, has 37 pieces of flair. And a terrific smile.”
The "Perfection is table stakes" never satisfied, tone-deaf assholes who demand crash schedules, living at the office, and the impossible without sharing the profits. "Be happy you even have a job, little office worker automaton or we'll replace you with TCS." This is definitely the way to lead an engineering team... if you want drama and shit as a result.
If you could just give us your soul, a little bit more, and of course be incredibly optimistic and joyful in the process, then we promise to make unrealistic expectations of your time, and set vague subjective and likely unachievable goals.
I don't see the controversy? If the effort you put in is "good enough", then the rewards should also just be "good enough". The biggest rewards should go to those who strive for them. People who's approach is to do as little work as they can get away with should expect the company to pay them as little as they can get away with, and everything scales up from there.
Side note, I'm not in the United States and I understand that the employer-employee relationship is more adversarial there. So I'm only going off my experience in the workforce.
Philosophizing about what the business needs vs the employee is what is happening here in the HN comments.
Context matters and we don't have enough, IMO, to judge. Is this hiring manager for sales looking to fill a role in a company that needs to look innovative or it will die? If so then that context justifies the A B C criterion.
That would certainly be the ideal scenario, but the issue is that it doesn't translate well to corporate bureaucracy.
In a sizeable company, your work performance is typically judged based on a small set of quantifiable metrics. How many sales dollars did you generate? How many widgets did you produce this quarter? Did you hit or exceed your set quota for X? and so on. Your work performance is also judged on how well you follow protocol and abide by the company handbook.
Innovation and "hustle" are not quantifiable metrics and get completely lost within the complexity and scope of managing a multi-location cubicle farm. A high level manager who implemented this kind of policy would most likely end up terminating the very kind of people he supposedly wanted to reward and promote.
Everybody innovate with hot new tech garbage! Ideally outside working hours! Screw those people with families who has experience and want to reliably deliver on agreed business goals!
Like yes, I also want to see involvement, proactivity and self-improvement. But that tweet gives solid sociopathic vibes.
Putting aside whether he is toxic or not, does anyone else not quite understand his example?
> A sales rep was at a "mixer" that he was not told to go and managed to get two prospects.
Not knowing the exact terms of the reps employment, but almost all of the sales reps I've dealt with work with commission. So in this particular case, they were told to go out and sell. So really they weren't going "above and beyond", they were doing their job to get paid.
Unlike engineering, they may not have worked during the day time, so doing this in the evening is just them shifting their schedule, and doing their job with a good attitude. Basically C's to use his scale.
Yeah, “Hustling is innovation” sounds like bro science. I say this as a bro myself.
It honestly sounds like he’s parroting some decent startup specific advice that he doesn’t really understand.
I read it as:
C’s execute workflows. These are the “I don’t know why we do it this way, I just work here.” people.
B’s improve workflows. They understand the “why”. They can reliably own and improve workflows/processes.
A’s improve systems. They understand that optimal business processes require optimal systems, and have the hutzpah to engage on that level. They’re the ones who sidle up to the founder at the water cooler and say “have you noticed that these two departments are duplicating work?”
This mindset only makes sense in a startup, where things are constantly in flux; where you’re not only delivering widgets, you’re building a company. To succeed at doing both, it’s not enough to have a bunch of ICs who execute their workflows and go home. You really need to be surrounded by “systems thinkers” who are aggressively injecting order into the chaos.
In a corporate setting, where the status quo is more deliberate and static, the calculus is very different.
Pretty much, this policy would only fly in a very small company where a very competent and attentive CEO is personally overlooking everyone's work and gives everyone a very long leash to work with.
In the corporate world, if you try to innovate or attempt to improve on an established process, you're most likely going to face disciplinary action unless you are very high up the ladder. C's and D's (and sometimes E's and F's) are A's, Actual A's and B's are insubordinate and unprofessional.
You're all taking this way too seriously. You see, Twitter is this guy's way of marketing himself. He's basically showing off what he thinks companies want to see in a manager.
This is so dumb. You can’t go above and beyond unless you’re given the initiative and authority to do so- as a programmer, what does that even mean? Making design decisions on Friday night without the input of the rest of the team? If you are part of the design process then there will be a time and place for you to shine- with the rest of the team present to think about your ideas. If you’re in one of those orgs where they just hand you complete specs and tell you to implement them, then there’s no way to go above and beyond without making the boss mad because you overstepped his authority.
39 comments
[ 0.23 ms ] story [ 77.6 ms ] thread'Average' is also 'Effective'. If the organisation's hiring most people at the right level, that's the way it should be, right?
[An organisational pat on the back that its employees are effective. And then whole business lines get cut, because they're not effective. But the employees are, correct? Blinkered into effectively obeying. That's different from the OP.]
Consistently getting 'exceptional' or 'outstanding' is a problem for your manager because it means they've hired you at the wrong level. Whether this is a problem for you depends on your manager.
It's not all in a name, it's how you think about it. That the author of the post deflates 'Effective' to 'C', which means overall able but lacking in in some areas, identifies something's off. Enough to make me run a mile from any association with this company.
Further, something wrong with the employee conversation. Given a job specification and reasonable leadership communication, having someone surprised means they've been working with the wrong goals, and that's leadership's problem. It happens, I've been there, and then you reverse it, however Tweeting it as a bragging point is lost on me as leadership communication.
Just promote that person to a higher grade, with increased expectations (w.r.t. sphere of influence), but zero change to compensation or assigned tasks!
They will no longer receive exceptional ratings nor occupy a larger slice of the bonus pool. And the manager gets to “check the box” for fostering employe development.
Later, when that employee leaves for greener pastures, you get a free pass for the next round of layoffs!
100% agree - the expectation setting about promos and big bonuses only coming to those who exceed expectations is frankly fine, but it's obvious that the intent of the letter-grade analogy is to imply an expectation (and evoke the associated anxiety) that there's going to be a paternalistic, we're-disappointed-and-you-should-be-too discussion for a 'C'.
If it means the person is at risk of being let go that’s an intense work environment and they should just modify the job description to mention that one should be “innovating within the framework” or whatever management bs he was pushing.
These are great receipts for Glassdoor or something to help warn folks away from the toxic "company owns your life" culture he's pushing at his rando startup.
Folks like this in different eras literally motivated communist revolutions
Side note, I'm not in the United States and I understand that the employer-employee relationship is more adversarial there. So I'm only going off my experience in the workforce.
Philosophizing about what the business needs vs the employee is what is happening here in the HN comments.
Context matters and we don't have enough, IMO, to judge. Is this hiring manager for sales looking to fill a role in a company that needs to look innovative or it will die? If so then that context justifies the A B C criterion.
In a sizeable company, your work performance is typically judged based on a small set of quantifiable metrics. How many sales dollars did you generate? How many widgets did you produce this quarter? Did you hit or exceed your set quota for X? and so on. Your work performance is also judged on how well you follow protocol and abide by the company handbook.
Innovation and "hustle" are not quantifiable metrics and get completely lost within the complexity and scope of managing a multi-location cubicle farm. A high level manager who implemented this kind of policy would most likely end up terminating the very kind of people he supposedly wanted to reward and promote.
Like yes, I also want to see involvement, proactivity and self-improvement. But that tweet gives solid sociopathic vibes.
> A sales rep was at a "mixer" that he was not told to go and managed to get two prospects.
Not knowing the exact terms of the reps employment, but almost all of the sales reps I've dealt with work with commission. So in this particular case, they were told to go out and sell. So really they weren't going "above and beyond", they were doing their job to get paid.
Unlike engineering, they may not have worked during the day time, so doing this in the evening is just them shifting their schedule, and doing their job with a good attitude. Basically C's to use his scale.
It honestly sounds like he’s parroting some decent startup specific advice that he doesn’t really understand.
I read it as:
C’s execute workflows. These are the “I don’t know why we do it this way, I just work here.” people.
B’s improve workflows. They understand the “why”. They can reliably own and improve workflows/processes.
A’s improve systems. They understand that optimal business processes require optimal systems, and have the hutzpah to engage on that level. They’re the ones who sidle up to the founder at the water cooler and say “have you noticed that these two departments are duplicating work?”
This mindset only makes sense in a startup, where things are constantly in flux; where you’re not only delivering widgets, you’re building a company. To succeed at doing both, it’s not enough to have a bunch of ICs who execute their workflows and go home. You really need to be surrounded by “systems thinkers” who are aggressively injecting order into the chaos.
In a corporate setting, where the status quo is more deliberate and static, the calculus is very different.
In the corporate world, if you try to innovate or attempt to improve on an established process, you're most likely going to face disciplinary action unless you are very high up the ladder. C's and D's (and sometimes E's and F's) are A's, Actual A's and B's are insubordinate and unprofessional.
"Average work" looks exceptional when your manager knows everything you've done, but looks mediocre when your manager is unaware.
Probably because the new hire just realized he'd made a critical mistake in joining a team headed by a garbage manager.
>If they want to advance, they need to be an A - and *everyone needs to identify them as an A.*
So in order to advance, you need to be overqualified for your position, and popular with every member of the team.
In smaller companies the deltas are obvious. In big companies it's easier to hide.
As soon as that staff member comes up with, or finds a better way to freedom.. they'll take it.
C level pay for A level work, loses out.