Showing up and doing your job without error and with a good attitude is a "C"
twitter.com
twitter.com
'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'.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Like yes, I also want to see involvement, proactivity and self-improvement. But that tweet gives solid sociopathic vibes.
Folks like this in different eras literally motivated communist revolutions