No more Brasilias at SkyWest...

I understand the difference. I really do. There are measurable items, and as a boss, it is your job to measure them. I can grade an employee based on their work. I have that skill. I can take the quality of a persons work and quantify it. I can say that this is an A+ employee, and will be a great manager. I can say that this accountant is fair, and I do not think that they can handle additional responsibilities. It is something that I have developed, and I am proud to have it. It is not something that you can learn in college, nor something that you can obtain by bossing a handful of employees around.

I see that you can only quantify something based on a date of hire, and that is sad. People can be graded based on performance. You may think that all of these things are objective, and I see your argument. As you spend more time in the real world, however, you will realize that you were wrong.

I understand that you are not, nor will you ever be, a leader. A leader would never say that it is impossible to evaluate an employees performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: adk
ATN_Pilot said:
Actually, I would hope that my hiring processes would prevent numbers 1 and 2 in the first place, which so far has been the case. Failing that, yes, employees who would be described as "eh" would not be working here for long.
Click to expand...
So you don't like performers; everyone has to be stellar?

What are you doing to attract, reward and retain "stellar"?
 
HRDiva said:
So you don't like performers; everyone has to be stellar?

What are you doing to attract, reward and retain "stellar"?
Click to expand...

It's not about "stellar." It's about meeting the standard or not meeting the standard. Someone who doesn't show up to work on time doesn't deserve a job. You don't just pass them up for a promotion and keep them around, you replace them with someone who will show up to work on time.

Some positions are easy to measure objectively. Some are not. I'll use two positions at my company as an example:

1. Leasing agents - These are basically salesmen. Their job is to close contracts with new clients and to get properties rented. Their performance is easily measurable using statistical data. Purely objective. Agent A converts 15% of her leads, and Agent B converts 25% of her leads. It's clear to see who the better leasing agent is.

2. Property managers - These are administrative positions. Making rent collection calls, writing up lease renewals, doing property inspections, etc. In this position, you either meet the standard or you don't. It's binary. Do you show up on time or don't you? Do you make your required phone calls or don't you? Etc.

Tying performance based pay, better territory, etc. to position #1 makes perfect sense. For position #2, not at all. For position #2, raises should be based purely on seniority.
 
Do you only use objective criteria when you hire them? Who is the oldest? Who is the tallest? Who can run the fastest?
 
ATN_Pilot said:
It's not about "stellar." It's about meeting the standard or not meeting the standard. Someone who doesn't show up to work on time doesn't deserve a job. You don't just pass them up for a promotion and keep them around, you replace them with someone who will show up to work on time.
Click to expand...

But earlier I gave the example of a guy who meets expectations, and does his job. But then you hire another guy who consistently exceeds expectations and is "stellar."

After another year, who do you promote? I would promote the guy who consistently exceeds expectations vs. the guy who only meets expectations, but is more senior.

Would you do differently?
 
ATN_Pilot said:
It's not about "stellar." It's about meeting the standard or not meeting the standard. Someone who doesn't show up to work on time doesn't deserve a job. You don't just pass them up for a promotion and keep them around, you replace them with someone who will show up to work on time.

Some positions are easy to measure objectively. Some are not. I'll use two positions at my company as an example:

1. Leasing agents - These are basically salesmen. Their job is to close contracts with new clients and to get properties rented. Their performance is easily measurable using statistical data. Purely objective. Agent A converts 15% of her leads, and Agent B converts 25% of her leads. It's clear to see who the better leasing agent is.

2. Property managers - These are administrative positions. Making rent collection calls, writing up lease renewals, doing property inspections, etc. In this position, you either meet the standard or you don't. It's binary. Do you show up on time or don't you? Do you make your required phone calls or don't you? Etc.

Tying performance based pay, better territory, etc. to position #1 makes perfect sense. For position #2, not at all. For position #2, raises should be based purely on seniority.
Click to expand...
So what are the expectations for #1? If it is 15%, someone is doing the job. The 25% person is stellar. Would you fire the person who is meeting expectations?

For #2, what if you have someone who connects dots and suggests better ways to get things done? Do you let them move on because they don't have seniority?
 
KLB said:
You have a lot to be proud of in this thread. A lot of the people in this thread were snot nosed college kids and flight instructors a while back. And now they are fussy mainline pilots "damn kids get off my lawn" types. :)

Gone are the days where JC can be labeled as nothing but regional pilots.
Click to expand...

Truth. Hell, now I'm literally speaking with a "snot nosed regional kid" about energy management in an Airbus who may be doing my recurrent in a few months.

And it's awesome.

Plus a new hire that I helped mentor is, more or less, and assistant chief pilot now too!

It's like planting a bunch of seeds and they're all starting to grow now. If I could just get some more hired… The revolution would begin.
 
HRDiva said:
So what are the expectations for #1? If it is 15%, someone is doing the job. The 25% person is stellar. Would you fire the person who is meeting expectations?
Click to expand...

Negative. These are positions where you can make decisions for bonuses, new territory, advancement, etc. based on performance. As long as they meet the standard (10% conversion rate), then they can stay. But these kinds of positions where performance is easily measurable with objective criteria are rare.

For #2, what if you have someone who connects dots and suggests better ways to get things done? Do you let them move on because they don't have seniority?
Click to expand...

Connects dots? It's a simple job. Make the phone calls, do the inspections, etc. Like I said, you're either doing the job or you're not.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Negative. These are positions where you can make decisions for bonuses, new territory, advancement, etc. based on performance. As long as they meet the standard (10% conversion rate), then they can stay. But these kinds of positions where performance is easily measurable with objective criteria are rare.
Click to expand...

It's posts like this that show you've never really managed anyone before. (Outside your own company.) You are essentially saying that it's impossible to evaluate an employee unless they do a job that has hard metrics associated. That's just plain false.

Do they show up on time?
Do they call out sick a lot?
Do they make errors frequently?
When they do make errors do they own up to them and fix them?
Do they work well with others?
Are they self-motivated, or must you constantly give them direction?

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point. It's just simply wrong to suggest that all employees are either good enough to stay employed or bad enough to be fired. There's a gamut of ability, motivation, and skill. That's what HR Diva is trying to tell you. "Meets expectations" is a fine employee, but given the choice between that guy and "exceeds expectations" why choose the lesser of the two based solely on seniority?

I believe your airline experience is clouding your judgement here. You seem to believe anyone who is motivated to climb the ladder and go above and beyond is an "ass kisser." Some people just get bored with doing the minimum or staying in the same role for years. They are motivated to excel because it increases their mobility within the company and keeps variety in their careers.
 
Derg said:
Truth. Hell, now I'm literally speaking with a "snot nosed regional kid" about energy management in an Airbus who may be doing my recurrent in a few months.

And it's awesome.

Plus a new hire that I helped mentor is, more or less, and assistant chief pilot now too!

It's like planting a bunch of seeds and they're all starting to grow now. If I could just get some more hired… The revolution would begin.
Click to expand...

It really is a great site.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Negative. These are positions where you can make decisions for bonuses, new territory, advancement, etc. based on performance. As long as they meet the standard (10% conversion rate), then they can stay. But these kinds of positions where performance is easily measurable with objective criteria are rare.
Click to expand...

So if senior employee has been with you for five years and has an 11% conversion rate she's considered a good employee, right? And you'd still promote her over junior employee with a 20% conversion rate?
 
His argument is full of holes, and won't answer the majority of the questions. He brags to be a "socialist", and this is just another example of these ridiculous beliefs. They are ill-conceived and poorly thought out.

I do, however, commend him on sticking with it. That is impressive if nothing else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top