Rank Everyone Against Everyone, No Threes Allowed

“business is structured for stability, not performance. Once you structure for performance, it becomes immediately clear that a way must be found to discover which employees per- form best. Sure, most companies go through a rote, ubiquitous employee evaluation, where on a_ one-to-five continuum everyone turns out to be a three. Great, but how do you know which threes are the best threes? You don’t. At CA, employees are ranked: she is number one in this group; he is number two; he is number three, and on down. At CA, em- ployees are ranked against each other. There can be no other meaning for best. Charles: “And always be bluntly, brutally”

“vated. In most U.S. companies, the motivation is threefold: sta- tus, perks, and cash—usually in that order. But if this works, it probably only manages to avert an even worse situation, in which, as under communism, no one is motivated at all. In a company where the best have as much chance to rocket ahead as the next-best, what advantage can there possibly be in doing any more than your job passingly well, kowtowing to your boss, and watching your ass? Only by ranking personnel can the best be assured of moving ahead.”