Comment by dotBen | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dotBen | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Wouldn't you be better off giving substantially larger raises to your higher performers?

The best way I've seen this done is carrot and stick combined. When I worked with MySpace/NewsCorp (for all my sins) one of the things I was most encouraged by was their anual review...

EVERYONE in the company was given an anual performance review by their manager with a final mark out of 5.

Then out of no where it was simply announced that EVERYONE who got 1 or 2 out of 5 was fired. No one knew that was going to happen but it was simple + effective.

Low performers, slackers, idiots and the like were immediately expelled from the company. Everyone who was pushing like crazy was inspired to go on and do more with a revitalized team. Anyone who was thinking about slacking was thus incentivized not to going forward. People who knew they were out of their depth and might get a 1 or 2 next time started looking for a different job. It was a harsh yet thoroughly effective move.

That, combined with salary raises makes for effective, rewarded teams IMHO.

What happened when the next annual review came around? Didn't everyone try to game it to maximise their scores? Did managers feel bad giving low marks knowing that it would mean people getting fired and potentially claims of discrimination?

Doesn't this contribute to an atmosphere of fear? I believe that numerous research teams have shown that creating an open atmosphere where everyone feels part of the same team leads to the most innovation. I'm sure Google goes for this approach.

an open atmosphere where everyone feels part of the same team leads to the most innovation

Well I agree, but there is a flip side to that which is where you have a number of people on your team who are not carrying their weight and are causing the high fliers to be held back, perhaps even feel complacent as though their contribution isn't worth pushing for if others can slack off. Clearly, hiring the right people to begin with is crucial but standards drop as companies get bigger.

If done right, the myspace approach can be executed correctly with little-to-no culture of fear.. everyone who scored high has nothing to fear (and even rewarded with pay rise) and anyone who has something to fear is (hopefully) kicked out.

Is MySpace actually doing any better as a result though? Seems like they are still losing.

(this was many years ago)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com