Interesting Links for 23-05-2014

[andrewducker]

• Is RIPA fit for purpose?
  (tags: crime police epicfail internet )
• George R. R. Martin’s 14 Greatest LiveJournal Entries
  (tags: livejournal GeorgeRRMartin )
• This is pretty-much how I feel about Facebook right now
  (tags: Facebook )
• The BBCs HR department are clearly trying to destroy it
  (tags: bbc HumanResources fail )
• This is now officially my

Comments

[steer]

Actually I'm assuming quite the opposite, that all teams have different percentages of people in different boxes and that managers have freedom to say that 100% of their staff are in the top 5% or bottom 5% if they believe that to be the case. I presumed that was the intent of the document (and that people discussing it later were misinterpreting

[steer]

Yes, OK -- I'm being too specific in saying promotion point taken, that wasn't the point I'm trying to make. The point is there's a great utility in finding out (as best you can) who are actually the top performers within your organisation -- not who passes some arbitrary milestone.

[andrewducker]

I think that it's worth knowing which people you have that are ultra-competent, and that you could throw at a new problem that comes up, or a project that has to succeed.

But that's frequently more complex than "In the top 1%" - it's usually skill-based or knowledge-based. So it might be "The best person who knows about the dinosaur-wrangling-system, plus the person who has amazing velociraptor skills". And those people will frequently be in the top 5% of the company (or whatever), but you generally want them for more specific reasons than that.

[steer]

Sure -- the best person with a specific skill set is a different problem and not one well tackled by "identify the top 5%".