Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Recommended Posts

Well, after telling his work force to man up and open some tinnies, Bruce has been booted out.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9248791/Video-KPMG-chairmans-Zoom-dressing-woke-staff-moaning.html

Replaced by two Shielas.

https://www.ft.com/content/24c25a23-0319-4a0b-8979-7c42b1e11207

Let the women boss hell begin....

 

One for Pinny


Under the current system, a team of five must include one person who achieves the best possible rating and one person who receives the worst. Managers and junior staff have criticised the system for being too inflexible and demoralising, with more than 600 employees “liking” an online comment during an all-firm meeting last November which called for it to be dismantled.

Gormless rank n rating a LA GE Welsch the cunt.

RnR works is you recruit 100d randomly.

It doesnt work in small teams where you've high, specific skills.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, spygirl said:

Well, after telling his work force to man up and open some tinnies, Bruce has been booted out.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9248791/Video-KPMG-chairmans-Zoom-dressing-woke-staff-moaning.html

Replaced by two Shielas.

https://www.ft.com/content/24c25a23-0319-4a0b-8979-7c42b1e11207

Let the women boss hell begin....

 

One for Pinny


Under the current system, a team of five must include one person who achieves the best possible rating and one person who receives the worst. Managers and junior staff have criticised the system for being too inflexible and demoralising, with more than 600 employees “liking” an online comment during an all-firm meeting last November which called for it to be dismantled.

Gormless rank n rating a LA GE Welsch the cunt.

RnR works is you recruit 100d randomly.

It doesnt work in small teams where you've high, specific skills.

 

 

Sorry, I'm probably being thick

Under the current system, a team of five must include one person who achieves the best possible rating and one person who receives the worst.

Does this mean they rank employees on ability and then deliberately retain crap staff and create teams that contain them rather than sacking them ?

Is this clown world?

I have no time for people that can't perform or hold their own. They should be made to leave and find something they can do well.

 

 

Edited by Hopeful
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hopeful said:

Sorry, I'm probably being thick

Under the current system, a team of five must include one person who achieves the best possible rating and one person who receives the worst.

Does this mean they rank employees on ability and then deliberately retain crap staff and create teams that contain them rather than sacking them ?

Is this clown world?

I have no time for people that can't perform or hold their own. They should be made to leave and find something they can do well.

 

 

they'll get rid of the worst performers , but there's always someone with the lowest score

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, ashestoashes said:

they'll get rid of the worst performers , but there's always someone with the lowest score

True, makes sense,

wasn't thinking it through

In that light, it might not be quite so bad as it sounds.

But I'd not want to be in a team where anybody was being carried, very demoralising

Edited by Hopeful
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Hopeful said:

Sorry, I'm probably being thick

Under the current system, a team of five must include one person who achieves the best possible rating and one person who receives the worst.

Does this mean they rank employees on ability and then deliberately retain crap staff and create teams that contain them rather than sacking them ?

Is this clown world?

I have no time for people that can't perform or hold their own. They should be made to leave and find something they can do well.

Nope, it means that each department has to rank its employees in order. Each department of five or more must identify one person who scores the highest, and one who scores lowest.

At the firm that I worked for, the one who scores highest gets the best pay rise, the one who scores lowest does not get a pay rise.

If you score lowest you get put on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).

If you cannot get off the PIP then you are sacked.

If you are put on a PIP two years running then you are sacked.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hopeful said:

True, makes sense,

wasn't thinking it through

In that light, it might not be quits so bad as it sounds.

But I'd not want to be in a team where anybody was being carried, very demoralising

If you take it at face value then it makes sense, however.....

If you work for a shrinking organisation which does not replace people who leave, then every year they conduct the ranking, somebody does badly and one way or another is managed out. They do not get replaced.

Next years, everybody moves one step down the ranking and some other poor bugger comes bottom

Rinse and repeat.

I found myself having to rank my team and punish the poor sod who came bottom, yet I and my senior management knew that there was nothing wrong with the person concerned and that we would be happy to hire them tomorrow.

This kind of system is really good at weeding out the wankers, but when they have gone it becomes very difficult and very devisive.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bornagain said:

Nope, it means that each department has to rank its employees in order. Each department of five or more must identify one person who scores the highest, and one who scores lowest.

At the firm that I worked for, the one who scores highest gets the best pay rise, the one who scores lowest does not get a pay rise.

If you score lowest you get put on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).

If you cannot get off the PIP then you are sacked.

If you are put on a PIP two years running then you are sacked.

 

 

 

 

Glad to see a system exists

The problem then is its is fair application.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bornagain said:

Nope, it means that each department has to rank its employees in order. Each department of five or more must identify one person who scores the highest, and one who scores lowest.

At the firm that I worked for, the one who scores highest gets the best pay rise, the one who scores lowest does not get a pay rise.

If you score lowest you get put on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).

If you cannot get off the PIP then you are sacked.

If you are put on a PIP two years running then you are sacked.

 

 

 

 

That is why I have not worked staff for 20 years, one place I did contract for 8 years was doing staff appraisals every 3 months and some of the tards would spend a whole week preparing their bullshit for them whilst eroding the bottom line.

Mental.

I have spent the last 4 years working for a Yankee company on contract, the only saving grace is they generally leave their UK staffers alone as they know they are less tolerant of this crap than Americans.

Still wouldn't work for them staff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bornagain said:

If you take it at face value then it makes sense, however.....

If you work for a shrinking organisation which does not replace people who leave, then every year they conduct the ranking, somebody does badly and one way or another is managed out. They do not get replaced.

Next years, everybody moves one step down the ranking and some other poor bugger comes bottom

Rinse and repeat.

I found myself having to rank my team and punish the poor sod who came bottom, yet I and my senior management knew that there was nothing wrong with the person concerned and that we would be happy to hire them tomorrow.

This kind of system is really good at weeding out the wankers, but when they have gone it becomes very difficult and very devisive.

 

 

 

 

Yes, seen that. the problem is knowing when to stop. There is so much crap management practice now.

The world I know, I was ranked by how many papers are published and in what journals, and how much money an individual brings in. 

Often being ranked by people that had published less and brought in less.

Edited by Hopeful
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Hopeful said:

Sorry, I'm probably being thick

Under the current system, a team of five must include one person who achieves the best possible rating and one person who receives the worst.

Does this mean they rank employees on ability and then deliberately retain crap staff and create teams that contain them rather than sacking them ?

Is this clown world?

I have no time for people that can't perform or hold their own. They should be made to leave and find something they can do well.

 

 

Its GE / Welsh world. So, yes, corrupt, scamming clown world.

Made the last 30 years hell.

Anyone working for a large US org - o wannabe - had this gormless system in place - coz tgats how Welsh/GE did it and they are US most valuable co pany ...

Until the fraud brough GE  down.

See thread on here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bornagain said:

If you take it at face value then it makes sense, however.....

If you work for a shrinking organisation which does not replace people who leave, then every year they conduct the ranking, somebody does badly and one way or another is managed out. They do not get replaced.

Next years, everybody moves one step down the ranking and some other poor bugger comes bottom

Rinse and repeat.

I found myself having to rank my team and punish the poor sod who came bottom, yet I and my senior management knew that there was nothing wrong with the person concerned and that we would be happy to hire them tomorrow.

This kind of system is really good at weeding out the wankers, but when they have gone it becomes very difficult and very devisive.

 

 

 

Look, they've done the studies and have found that half their staff are below average.  They can't just ignore that -- they should be aiming to have all of their staff above average and they've worked out that this is one way to achieve that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, spygirl said:

Every area where theres been a large influx of wimmin in the public sector has rapidly become unmanageable and unproductive.

Nursing.

Teaching

Now GPs.

The sick and time off is is off the scale.

 

It wasnt the women part. I meant he sees through all the unconscious bias shite. 

Now there'll be extra unconscious bias classes and they'll wonder why half the consultants get laid off as their 35 chargeable hours per week drops to 20. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bear Hug said:

KPMG often come up with innovations to demoralise employees.

On a bright side, our office had a massage room, where everyone got an appointment every couple of months. 

I fucking hate extras.

I just want money.

I'm ok with a water cooler and coffee machine/kettle/ fridge.

If I want gym, or donut or massage or chef cooked food then I'll go and buy them myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dgul said:

Look, they've done the studies and have found that half their staff are below average.  They can't just ignore that -- they should be aiming to have all of their staff above average and they've worked out that this is one way to achieve that.

 

The analogy that I used with the boss was the World Cup.

Using our corporate system, the worst player in the German team might be better in every way than the best player in the England team, however, the German would be disciplined and then sacked whilst the Englishmen would be rewarded.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, spygirl said:

Every area where theres been a large influx of wimmin in the public sector has rapidly become unmanageable and unproductive.

Nursing.

Teaching

Now GPs.

The sick and time off is is off the scale.

 

I originally started my current job as maternity cover and then the offered me a permanent job. I have been in it for just over 4 years. Since then the woman who I originally came to cover has either been:

  • Been on maternity leave (a proportion of which was unpaid) 
  • Off sick
  • Furlough

In 4 years done about a months work (well present in the office). 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...