Off Boarding and Morale
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
My new CEO one of main goals was to eliminate attrition. We had very high turnover.
Step one was to raise annual salary increases, more promotions, provide more paid training, better bonuses, more remote work, better technology and equipment for staff. Basically whatever they need to do job they get and total flexibility in work schedule. Step two - since this costs money, every quarter we rate people and off board as needed. They just disappear. They are not fired. They call it involuntary leavers. Not many but like 1 percent each quarter. In metrics we quote we had zero people quit this year and no turnover. UnRegretted Attrition does not count. Just a chance to “upskill” position. Is this a good thing? Would it motivate you? Or is this some crazy new mgt. thing. |
Anonymous
| I think people should only be fired if they are not meeting the standard, not because they are the bottom x%. So if the goal is sell 100 widgets and most people sell a range of 110-150 and some only sell 100 you still keep them because they met the standard. |
Anonymous
| IMO it beats high turnover. |
Anonymous
| “off boarding” is the same as firing. I’m not sure on what the CEO thinks the difference is? |
Anonymous
Agreed. Why should you have to exceed expectations to keep your job? Presumably, they chose 100 widgets as a benchmark for the company to be successful. So, why get rid of workers that make the company successful? |
Anonymous
Yeah, what the heck? If they aren't choosing to leave, they are being fired. I hope you aren't telling people they won't get unemployment. |
Anonymous
The "difference" is optics. Much better look if someone offboards vs. fired, dismissed, terminated, and other "harsh" and negative connotations. |
Anonymous
+2 i hate this corporate speak. ‘Off boarding’ an unwilling employee is firing. Just be honest - we have high expectations, we provide great benefits and expectations. You need to clearly establish the value you bring. |
Anonymous
+1 CEO doesn't sound very bright. Or the people who created the goals and how to measure the goals are being fooled. |
Anonymous
Good lord. You think people actually believe that distinction? Seriously? It’s this cr@p that ruins company culture. The definition of all of those words are the exact same - you weren’t a good enough employee to keep, so we are letting you go. |
Anonymous
| This sounds like an absolute morale killer. And it's hard to see how it's reducing turnover, because the uncertainty of how their performance will stack up would leave everyone constantly looking elsewhere. |
Anonymous
| Intel Corp ranked everyone annually and then dropped the bottom 1% annually - for decades. No idea if they still do that. |
Anonymous
| It's better to intentionally lose low performers rather than lose high performers because they could get more pay and flexibility elsewhere. But the problem with stack ranking is that once is exists, employees figure out how to game it via hire-to-fire, not cooperating with each other in order to tank coworkers' performances, etc. This is what happened at Amazon. But their URA targets were also higher than it sounds like yours are. |