The targets will be more demanding. Outcomes will be closely monitored. And coaching will be available to anyone who needs it, though the bottom 5pc of performers may be shipped out. It won’t quite be The Wolf of Wall Street transplanted to your local branch in Eastbourne or Solihull, but the Lloyds boss Charlie Nunn has resolved to bring some of the ruthless drive of the hedge funds and investment bankers to the staid world of high street banking.
The shite getting fired is ruthless, eh? Seems a little delicate. But then that’s about how employment law see,s to work these days. Sadly, also the attitude al all too many employees. What? Work?
Not really. I’ve seen how this works. It just means the shite who get on with their boss will be fine. Anybody who is “difficult” will suddenly and mysteriously be a “low performer”.
Having had socialist governments for over 40 years, the art of gaining power in socialism has infected everything. God knows how many arses TTK licked to become head of the CPS. It is obvious how he became entitled to vast sums of money from his loving benefactor which, when discovery became imminent, morphed into specs that nobody has ever seen for sale and suits so expensive that even Jermyn Street habitues would be embarassed by…
As someone who has to deal with the tech side of Lloyds fairly frequently, I’d suggest 5% is a pretty tame target. The average meeting we have with them seems to involve at least 8 of them dialling in and only 1 or 2 actually saying anything.
One process we have involves them sending us files electronically on a regular basis. They literally have separate *departments* for generating the files and another for sending them. Neither of which has the faintest idea about how the other works and they won’t talk to each other. It’s pretty wild.
I’ve seen chatter about Lloyds sacking the “mediocre” and, alternatively, sacking the worst 5%. Which is it?
Put otherwise, what the fuck do journalists think “mediocre” means?
And don’t give me twee shit about words changing their meaning. Stupidity remains stupidity.
dm
‘the best people’, ‘the mediocre’; ‘the unemployable (even by us)’
I think Martin Near The M25 has got this one right. In most organisations, especially the big managerialist ones, performance ratings are as much about whose backside you kiss or who you’re mates with, as actually being good at your job. Organisations are very rarely true meritocracies. For some reason automation and efficiencies never seems to hit the top rank of generic executives who go round and round on a carousel of unaccountability.