Peer ranking recognises real talent; stand aside formal job title
Typically, an associate will be evaluated by 20 or 30 peers and will, in turn, evaluate 20-30 colleagues…you’re asked to rank only people you know. What we find is that there’s typically a lot of consistency in who people view as the top contributors, and who they view as the bottom of the list.
You don’t evaluate people solely on the basis of what they’re doing within their team, but in terms of the broader impact they may be having across the company. And then beyond their contributions, are they behaving in ways that are collaborative? Are they living the values?
…it ensures that real talent gets recognized. This system avoids the problem of paying someone more because of seniority or title. No system is perfect, but ours levels the playing field and allows real talent to emerge and get compensated accordingly.
We don’t need a bureaucratic system to hold people accountable. We don’t need time cards, because we don’t care when the person comes or leaves—we just care about their contribution. So you can deconstruct a lot of the typical bureaucratic processes that are typically used to measure and control performance.
…we ask our associates to view performance holistically, in terms of someone’s total impact, versus focusing on a few specific variables.
- Terri Kelly
Related
Leaders determined by whether they get a following
Evaluation by peers puts you on a path to doing your best
(Source: The Wall Street Journal)
