Related Posts
Conversation Starter
How is AT&T project in Techmahindra?
More Posts
Where can I get good sativa 🍃? Dm me pls 😔🙃
Additional Posts in Consulting
Pro
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Whoever is the shortest - they’re lowest to the ground, making them the “low performers”
Screw you C1, don’t make me come over there and bite your ankles 😜
Sometimes it’s simply because the people you work with don’t like you
Yeah, you should work with people you like...In a perfect world
Probably a mix of both
It can literally mean anything
Over time, utilization and client performance are highly correlated.
D2 - When staffing, we have a pick of the people available. We pick the best people we can find. The better you are, the more you get picked. Less good, not picked as often. So utilization tracks performance over time.
It’s reputation focused behind the scenes- it doesn’t take long for people to talk about “low performers”, not that much time and energy goes into it, just passing comments like “I probably won’t have this person on my project again”. Add in low utilization % on top of it and you quickly have a case.
In reality it varies from company to company and from different groups within the same company.
Usually it is metrics driven - pretty easy data to collect in consulting - but sometimes there have to be tiebreakers as usually you have to let a certain number of people go and your first round of selections may not be enough. I’ve had to do several lay-off rounds in my career. In the most recent one, we let those with poorer metrics go but I was still forced to let a few more go. To tiebreak, HR took metrics from prior years into account and let those with lower metrics go over a three year timeframe.
Sometimes it matters more what you’re doing and how far out you’re booked. You might have lower utilization and be booked for the next 9 months, while the person on the bench who has better metrics but no projects and few prospects gets let go instead. Likability and reputation can also influence decisions.
It can vary from firm to firm, but anecdotally I've seen it refer to folks who fall into one or more of these buckets: (1) low utilization, (2) low profitability, (3) low performance ratings, (4) low to no future work lined up
The people that the majority do not get along with or the people that do not provide any value to the firm