I worked for a well known healthcare software vendor in the 90s...the QA term of the times was "good enough" software. If it worked for them... (you may have their software in your hospital right now!).
One thing that pops to my mind - what is the criteria for Star vs. Adequate? Who decides? Very subjective and good reason to dump those that just don't fit a mold, rather than performance.
Margaret Heffernan made some interesting points in her TED talk about building teams made of superstars and the impact this has on productivity. https://www.2civility.org/super-chickens-lesson-competition/
Stars are stars till the Peter priciple kicks in. Then they are adequate, maybe.
I might just be pedantic, but adequate means "sufficient" or "good enough," although it has an alternate definition of "barely sufficient." If you're firing someone for being good enough, even if it's just barely good enough, you're showing that your definition is bad.
If adequate isn't good enough, you need to change your definition of adequate.
Props to Syndrome on the Incredible quote for a cousin of this comment.
Would I feel comfortable? No. But the people who apply here are not seeking comfort.
Considering the vast majority of the population falls into the "adequate" category, where would everyone work with this approach? Every organization, just like every sports team, will have it's stars that are the "game changers", but nothing would ever get done without an "adequate" supporting cast. Inadequate is a fair spot to draw the line, but it's also fair to say that you need at least one star to shine,
This approach may sound great but it has major problems.
Though I work in a medical school dept, which most people would view as rather protected, our chairman puts anyone who’s less than the 50th percentile for RVU benchmarks on warning and will not renew their contract if it persists for 6 months. You could have had great productivity for years and be at the 49th percentile now but it won’t matter. To make matters worse the absolute number of RVUs needed to be at the 50th percentile keeps increasing because most places set their bonuses based on RVUs above 50th or higher levels. This “Lake Woebegone effect” where everyone has to be above average is incredibly destructive and creates much anxiety, demoralization, competition over roles that happen to generate more RVUs, refusal or passive avoidance of key tasks that don’t generate RVUs and huge amounts of staff burnout and turnover with associated costs and chaos.
Our chairman also supports and rewards those who pursue innovative ideas. This would be fine except when you have multiple new programs to support, most of which are half baked while basic treatment needs are either unaddressed or delivered with poor quality. Many of the “innovative” programs skirt the border of regulations and/or best practices (such as appropriate supervision of trainees). It’s only a matter of time before there are billing/compliance issues with CMS and/or medicolegal problems due to inadequate clinical care/supervision (or excess billing of RVUs to meet percentile targets) but others will likely be scapegoated for that. Those who are solid consistent workers (but not willing to cut corners) hope they can outlast the current leadership. If not, at least we’re able to sleep at night....
One might start off a star but become eclipsed as brighter stars appear. Can't imagine this fosters a healthy work/life balance for fear of being labeled adequate.
"When everyone's super, no one will be"
No ... this "theory of mgmt" has been thoroughly discredited.