裁员10%不算裁｜关于271强制分布
271 强制分布美国人40年前就开始玩了
Tomasz Tunguz 写了篇文章「Is a 10% Reduction in Staff a Layoff?」，观点就是公司人员减少 10% 不算裁员，是为了优化公司现金流，是合理的人员变动。
文章顺带提到了强制分布（链接 2 ），这个英文名称就很精髓了，叫「Vitality Curve 」，英文别称还有 Forced Ranking（现在国内基本按这个说法翻译） 或 Rank and Yank。
Yank 这个单词我也不认识，查了下字典有拖出去撸掉的意思。
强制分布这个概念由通用 CEO 杰克韦尔奇在 1980 年代提出，Wikipedia 的介绍：
The vitality model of former General Electric chairman and CEO Jack Welch has been described as a "20-70-10" system. The "top 20" percent of the workforce is most productive, and 70% (the "vital 70") work adequately. The other 10% ("bottom 10") are nonproducers and should be fired.
大意就是一个组织中 20% 的员工是优秀的，70% 的员工是胜任的，10% 的员工是没有胜任力的，俗称 271 分布，这个相应的变种就是 361 分布（优秀/普通/淘汰员工的分布比例分别为 30%/60%/10%）。
这套制度个人推测国内最早使用的应该是 20 世纪初的阿里 B2B 业务，可能由关明生先生引入，他写过一本叫《关乎天下》的书。如果对阿里早期的 B2B 业务发展感兴趣，和阳的《阿里局》也是不错的读物。
GE 的成功让他成为阿里的学习目标，阿里的成功又成为其他互联网公司的学习目标，尤其是其组织设计，271 强制分布基本上被各阿里 HR 复制到其它公司。
271 强制分布也不是没有缺点，容易产生以下后果，以下是 Wikipedia 原文：
Consequences
Welch advises firing "C" players, while encouraging "A" players with rewards such as promotions, bonuses, and stock options. However, if such rewards become a meaningful portion of “A” player's overall compensation, it can lead to perverse incentives, especially if the rewards of being an “A” player are predictable and recurring, such as a normal part of the annual review process. When broad-based stock compensation is the norm, avoiding perverse incentives can be difficult.
Turning promotions into pay cuts
When the rewards given to “A” players are significant, accepting a promotion has added risk. For example, consider an employee who is “A” rated at their current job level. When promoted to the next level, they continue to perform at their exemplary level. But due to higher expectations, the employee may become “B” rated. If the performance based rewards prior to promotion exceed the raise accompanying the promotion, the promotion is an overall reduction in compensation. (Compare the Peter principle). This creates an incentive for the employee to refuse promotions.
Encouraging sabotage
The vitality curve creates incentive for employees involved in hiring of peers to avoid the best candidates. The personal impact of adding excellent coworkers is more competition at the “A” end of the curve. It is in the individual's personal interest to seek out candidates skilled enough to retain their job, but not skilled enough to excel. This helps to fill the quota of “C” rankings, and makes themselves rank better. This incentive grows over time as sub-par talent is removed, since it becomes increasingly difficult for good employees to obtain good ratings. Simply “working harder” is an unreliable strategy for obtaining good ratings if everyone is doing it.
Reduction in productivity
If the workload is already high, and the workforce is reduced further due to this vitality curve, then the hiring managers will be under pressure to hire candidates as soon as possible to manage the workload. This may result in hiring lower-caliber candidates than the “C” employees they are replacing, thus actually bringing the overall quality of resources at the organization down.
这在执行了近 20 年 271 分布的阿里，也得到了印证：
- 部分员工到了一定级别后不想晋升，因为不晋升拿 A 绩效不会比晋升后拿 B 绩效差，且会扛负更大的工作压力和管理责任，部分阿里老 P7 不晋升很滋润
- 招聘的候选人不是最佳候选人，团队招聘的目的就是为了让新人背绩效 C，阿里社会招聘的口碑也不是很好，这也许是阿里侧面对校招比较重视的原因吧，愿意重金支持阿里星项目
- 团队开除 C 的人以后工作负荷太大，在招聘上会更容易妥协，可能会导致团队整体生产力开始下降
相关链接：