That became clear in a recent study by Martin Abel, an assistant professor of economics at Middlebury College, that was published in the Institute of Labor Economics.
All managers need to be able to give tough feedback at times. But Abel’s research finds that both men and women discriminate against female bosses who dish out criticism, even when the feedback is worded identically to the feedback given by male managers.
Women are supposed to be nice, complimentary and supportive (especially to men). Those who are assertive and speak up, instead of melting into the background and shutting up are considered bitches.
As are women who do what bosses are supposed to do, i.e., provide feedback, both good and not, that helps their people grow and develop their capabilities to the fullest.
…workers surveyed were “about three times more likely to associate giving praise and appropriate use of tone with female managers. By contrast, they are about twice more likely to associate giving criticism and strict expectations with male managers.”
The attitudes aren’t new. The same type of studies (presenting the same whatever, but using male and female names) have documented the same reactions in college professors, managers and workers.
A year later GE scrapped its notorious rank and yank review system as implemented by then-CEO Jack Welch. A year after that Amazon followed suit. There are still plenty of companies that use the system — whether they admit it or just change the name. Individual managers are also guilty of it no matter their company’s attitude. Be it company wide or individually the effect is the same — higher turnover, lower productivity, decreased engagement, and increasing recruiting costs.
Years ago I wrote about how to make annual reviews painless and effective — more a review of the year’s accomplishments and setting goals for the coming year than a critique of work past.
It worked because mini-reviews, coaching and conversations during the year were frequent.
Typical annual reviews were fraught with fear and loathing.
For decades, General Electric practiced (and proselytized) a rigid system, championed by then-CEO Jack Welch, of ranking employees. Formally known as the “vitality curve” but frequently called “rank and yank,” the system hinged on the annual performance review, and boiled the employees’ performance down to a number on which they were judged and ranked against peers. A bottom percentage (10% in GE’s case) of underperformers were then fired.
Jack Welch championed a lot of very bad stuff (e.g., work/life balance, HR), but the negativity of rank and yank is near the top, if not number one.
(As for GE’s stellar results keep under Welch keep in mind that businesses like GE Financial practically printed money until it all blew up.)
But times are changing.
According to Raghu Krishnamoorthy, the longtime GE exec in charge of Crotonville (GE’s in-house management school) “Command and control is what Jack was famous for. Now it’s about connection and inspiration.”
And to that end, GE has developed a new in-house app that basically does what I and others evangelized a decade and more ago.
The new app is called “PD@GE” for “performance development at GE” There’s an emphasis on coaching throughout, and the tone is unrelentingly positive. The app forces users to categorize feedback in one of two forms: To continue doing something, or to consider changing something.
If you don’t have the luxury of an app you can simplify it even further.
Care about your people.
Interact with your people.
Talk with your people.
Challenge your people.
Help them grow and advance — even when that means they leave for a better opportunity that you can’t provide.
Read what GE is doing and adapt it to your own group — whether your company does of not.
Back when Jack Welch implemented forced ranking throughout GE. was perched at the top of management gurus he
Also known as forced distribution and, derisively, as “rank and yank,” the practice was championed by former General Electric CEO Jack Welch, who insisted that GE identify and remove the bottom 10 percent of the workforce every year.
Hundreds of companies used it, including tech giants, but most (all?) have stopped. Some took longer than others, Microsoft got rid of it in 2015.
Amazing how it’s only taken 30+ years for management to figure out that setting employee against employee does not foster teamwork.
Having to watch your back, knowing it’s “you or them,” doesn’t foster anything.
But even without a formal forced ranking policy, some managers still believe that pitting team members against each other is the fastest way to boost productivity.
However, it’s a great way to increase your experience hiring
Today I conducted my quarterly Business Review with the leadership at my company and I can tell you I’m happy it’s over.
It’s not that I don’t enjoy them, it’s just that they can cause undue stress on everyone in the office for weeks on end.
You build your deck, rehearse your script and try to prepare as best you can for the unexpected questions. After it’s over you breath a sigh of relief.
As I went through my review today I was prepared and looking forward to it. I crave feedback and I don’t receive a ton of it from my manager, so this was an opportunity for me to receive some much needed responses.
At the end of it I discussed some initiatives that I wanted to pursue and they green lighted two of the three, not bad in my book.
After it was all done I realized that I would actually prefer to have these more often. I read that Goldman Sacks has continuous feedback and it helps associates see where they stand in real time. Maybe that’s a bit much, but more than once a quarter can be good as well.
How do you approach this exercise at work?
If the leadership is positive than I think it’s a good thing. I have seen it skew to the negative, though, when you have a demanding boss.
Are these events even needed? In sales I think so because you have a business to run. Does that apply elsewhere?
It’s amazing to me, but looking back over more than a decade of writing I find posts with information that is as useful now as when it was written.
Golden Oldies is a collection of what I consider some of the best posts during that time.
It’s that time of the year. No matter what media you prefer you’ll find something about the best stuff gifts for your first apartment, tech gifts, various gift categories at different price points, and on and on. You can also find a myriad of options to give experiences, instead of stuff — if you can afford to give experiences.
Below I’ve described two ways to give something unforgettable, no matter your budget,
During the holiday media gift frenzy it is the truly wise who remember that the best gifts aren’t electronic or screen-dependent.
The very best aren’t paid for with money, either, but with a much more precious currency — time.
Time to love.
Time for friendship.
Time to play.
Time to talk and laugh together — F2F
Food cooked and shared together at (someone’s) home.
Not just during the season, but scattered throughout the year like diamonds on a velvet cloth or stars in a clear night sky.
Along with time, the most wonderful gift you can give a child is a love of books — real books.
Real because reading a printed page affects the brain in different and better ways than words on a screen.
Whether your child reads or you read to them start with the books from Lost My Name, which creates personalized books using your child’s name.
Lost My Name — founded in 2012 by Asi Sharabi and Tal Oron — creates customised books based around a child’s name. The books are created and ordered online, then sent out to printing partners around the world. (…) “As a technology company, we’re very proud to be innovating on one of the oldest media formats in the world – the physical book,” said Oron. “We think technology equals possibility. And possibility is the dominant currency in wonderful, nostalgic storytelling, where the book’s job is to inspire children to believe in adventure; that anything can happen if they imagine it. As screens become more and more seductive to children, there is an increasing need to inject more magic into books – to find new ways to spark their imagination.”
Munroe believes that anything can be explained simply using normal language and proves it in his new book (which is a good choice for anyone on your gift list).
“Thing Explainer: Complicated Stuff in Simple Words.” The oversized, illustrated book consists of annotated blueprints with deceptively spare language, explaining the mechanics behind concepts like data centers, smartphones, tectonic plates, nuclear reactors and the electromagnetic spectrum. In his explanations, Mr. Munroe avoided technical jargon and limited himself to the 1,000 most commonly used words in the English language. This barred him from using words like helium and uranium, a challenge when describing how a rocket ship or reactor works.
For book links and great comics (sample above; chosen for enabling holiday restraint) visit Munroe’s site.
Books are good for adults, too. There are great sites beyond Amazon that offer critiques of books that run the business gamut from being a better boss to upping your game wherever you are in your career.
Another great thing about real books is what you can do when you are done reading them.
Some you’ll want to keep for your own library;
some you’ll share with friends, colleagues and those you mentor; and
It’s amazing to me, but looking back over nearly a decade of writing I find posts that still impress, with information that is as useful now as when it was written.
Golden Oldies is a collection of what I consider some of the best posts during that time.
It’s that time of year again and and my best advice hasn’t changed since 1977 or as I wrote it in 2007. The only difference is that now it’s the same advice you can find in dozens of places. Done right (as described below) reviews are the greatest gift you can give your people. So give it to them, even if you don’t get the same from your boss. After all, it is said that it’s better to give than receive and, as I tell clients, you can control the former, not the latter.
I’ve written on and off about the importance of, and how to do, performance reviews and it’s that time of year again.So in yet another effort to convince you doubters out there that honesty is the best policy and your people really don’t want to hear feel-good fudging, prevarications or outright lies, especially around Christmas.
Social psychologist William B. Swann in a new study published in the Academy of Management Journal… People don’t like to be treated positively if they know it is not heartfelt. If people are coming across as inauthentic and forcing you to come across as inauthentic in return, that can be enormously stressful… His work has centered on an idea known as self-verification theory. All people carry around an image of themselves that tells them who they are, whether they are good-looking or average-looking, for example, or clever at math, or kind and thoughtful or largely self-centered. Inasmuch as people want to be recognized for the things they are good at, Swann’s work suggests many people also want honest acknowledgments of their flaws, and that when these flaws are minimized or wished away, people end up feeling worse rather than better.
Just remember, honest and authentic don’t mean abusive or destructive. Offering recognition of what the person does well and being candid about areas that need improvement are two hallmarks of a good review.
The third is no surprises, which means that you’ve been giving candid feedback throughout the year.
Tuesday I commented on the ‘duh’ factor in relation to Amazon finally eliminated forced ranking reviews, AKA, rank and yank, recognizing that they did nothing to foster teamwork or improve retention.
Like I said, “duh.”
Today we have Facebook offering up another duh moment.
Facebook is trying to accommodate millennials and its younger predecessor by talking to each worker and figuring out how their individual skills can be used to make a more personalized career path, not something more traditional and cookie cutter-like.
Definitely duh.
I defy you to think of anyone who works at any job and any level who doesn’t prefer this approach.
Millennials may walk faster than Gen X and Boomers when they don’t like the culture, but that, too, will change as they take on more responsibilities, such as kids, mortgages and aging parents
Whenever I hear how different the needs of millennials are compared to previous generations I’m reminded of these words from Socrates.
“Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.”
Give it a rest.
You hire individuals and need to manage them as such.
So put away the cookie cutter and provide everyone, no matter their age, with an environment in which to grow and flourish and the tools needed to do it.
Yesterday’s Golden Oldie referenced Jack Welch’s responsibility for the atrocious forced ranking system followed by so many large, and even not-so-large, companies.
… a review process known as “stack ranking” or “rank and yank” in which employees are rated against each other as opposed to how well they meet their job requirements. (…) Using it long-term tends to create a dog-eat-dog kind of culture.
That changed drastically under Jeff Immelt, GE’s current CEO, as described last year.
According to Raghu Krishnamoorthy, the head of GE’s in-house management school,
“Command and control is what Jack was famous for. Now it’s about connection and inspiration.”
But not at Amazon, because Jeff Bezos walked in Welch’s shoes on many levels, including reviews.
… the review process was described like “choosing sacrificial lambs to protect more essential players.” (…) Bezos believed managers needed to raise the performance bar with every new hire so that the only employees that rise through the company would be the ones considered exceptional.
It’s amazing to me, but looking back over more than a decade of writing I find posts that still impress, with information that is as useful now as when it was written.
Golden Oldies is a collection of what I consider some of the best posts during that time.
I’ve changed a lot since I wrote this in 2006, as has the world. For one thing, if I was writing it today I wouldn’t say “respectfully.” I don’t respect Welch or consider him a sterling example of either management or leadership. Under his watch, GE profits soared — generated by the financial engineering employed by GE Financial.
Welch instigated a review system based on forced rankings resulting in a culture of fear and mistrust, which spread through major corporations like the flu, damaging moral and trashing talent. And he believes that careers take precedence over family, marriage and life in general. If you are a boss in the 21st Century he is definitely not a role model.
Today I take my (professional) life in my hands and disagree with an icon. Jack and Suzy Welch write a column in Business Week called, “Ideas The Welch Way” that I’ve been ambivalent about since its inception. Jack Welch is one of the gods of the business Parthenon and for a “nobody” to publicly disagree with him—well, fools rush in and all that.
The July 17 column is about what HR is and should be. My disagreement is that they seem to feel that HR should orchestrate, and even do, line management’s job. In the second paragraph they say, “Look, HR should be every company’s killer app. What could possibly be more important than who gets hired, developed, promoted, or moved out the door?”
Agreed, nothing is more important; those four actions are critical, but there is no way that the most brilliant HR person can make the call on any of them. They are neither close enough to the day-to-day actions of each department or knowledgeable enough of the work and its technical requirements to determine
what skills should be strengthened or what skills-hole needs to be plugged most urgently based on upcoming projects;
the subtle competence, latent leadership or intuitive flashes of brilliance that would bloom with effort—or what efforts would produce the best growth;
the level and quality of leadership and interpersonal skills in action;
whether/when to terminate (unless the company uses some variety of forced ranking, a practice I really detest!)
These are not only the responsibility and decisions of line managers—it’s what they’re paid for!
I’m not saying that top flight HR can’t play a real role in a company’s success. I am saying that it can’t substitute for excellent managers and that the smaller the company the less need for HR talent or, in many cases, any HR beyond benefits administration.
Look, without people there is no such entity as a company (Welch and I agree on that). In my headhunting years I saw stars at all levels change companies and dim under different management; by the same token, I’ve seen people who were terminated for poor performance become internally (and externally) recognized stars under different management.
It’s great line managers at all levels that attract and retain talent.
Managers are the reason that
within the same company (or division) one department has high turnover while another doesn’t;
within a department one manager promotes from within and fills her openings while another doesn’t.
It’s managers that raise productivity, promote innovation, and set the company on the road to success.
And it’s the CEO, supported by his senior staff, which, as Welch says, should include HR, that is the font of the culture that allows and encourages all this to happen.
Entrepreneurs face difficulties that are hard for most people to imagine, let alone understand. You can find anonymous help and connections that do understand at 7 cups of tea.
Crises never end.
$10 really does make a difference and you’ll never miss it,