'Rank-and-yank' policy is harsh but decisive

By Larry Ballard
The Des Moines Register

Bosses practice rank and yank.

Just try and tell me you won't read something with a title like that.

In the media biz, we call it an attention-grabber. An attention-grabber is guaranteed to attract readers, even when it's followed by a weather story or the reporter's grocery list.

It's the reason we include the words "controversy," "hot button" or "Britney" in the first sentence of nearly every article.

"Rank and yank" is a relatively new term for a revolutionary business concept (even though it sounds like the name of a new sitcom on Fox).

Basically, a boss who practices "rank and yank" lumps his employees into three categories:

• "A" players: The 20 percent who are filled with passion, committed to excellence, etc.

• "B" players: Those seven of every 10 who are vital, but not visionary. They show up, usually on time, and work hard, most of the time.

• "C" players: The 10 percent who are pretty much bottom-feeders and become a drain on the two categories above.

Now be honest, you can't swing a dead cat in the office (assuming you're prone to such activity) without hitting someone who's just taking up room and collecting a paycheck. Here's how "rank and yank" works: You fire the "C" group. Just lop off the whole bunch and hire anew. The idea was honed by Jack Welch, former head of General Electric, which showed a 28-fold increase in earnings between 1981 and 2001.

Workforce magazine estimates that one in every five large companies now use some version of "rank and yank."

Some say it's good business. Others say it's not. (And they usually follow it by saying: "My cat has a sore throat, so I'm taking off early Friday.")

Whatever your opinion on "rank and yank," it beats other, more popular personnel strategies. I refer, of course, to the "eenie, meenie" and "rock-scissors-fired" approaches.

I was determined to find out, once and for all, if "rank and yank" is an effective management tool or simply a good name for the next Motley Crue album.

Lucky for me, a nationally recognized expert on the subject works at Drake University.

Steve Scullen, a management professor, has heard all the arguments for and against "rank and yank."

• Con: "It's bloodthirsty, and it fails to reflect each employee's unique traits, such as whether she buys the first round at Friday happy hour."

• Pro: "Just shut up. It's a good idea. And by the way, you're fired."

Scullen has no doubt seen the results of a nationwide MetLife survey that shows job security ranks behind only health insurance on a list of employee concerns. So he knows how much is riding on his opinion of "rank and yank."

He used computer models and psychometrics, which are about as clear to me as scalene triangles, Cartesian planes or, for that matter, Paulette Waterman.

When I told Scullen I wanted to boil down his rather complex findings, he asked me to "avoid anything that sounds like we are recommending that employers start firing a lot of people."

"We are not advocates of the 'rank and yank' philosophy," he said. "The actual purpose of our research was to demonstrate that 'rank and yank' systems cannot generate continuous improvement over the long term."

Scullen went on to say that "rank and yank" companies might show some short-term improvement. But bosses need to consider the possible negative effects on morale, retention and recruitment.

Bottom line, it might be a good idea to find out if your boss is a "rank and yank" subscriber before you send that e-mail attachment that has his head pasted on the body of a bonobo.