I thought the Talent scouting Averagees podcast was good. While recognizing the point made that removing individuals the lower they are in the heirarchial stack, I'm curious about thoughts on if the score should be adjusted in instances where managers recognize there is a bad fit and move to correct (bring the individual up or make the call on keeping the person)
I do appreciate that hiring someone who is a low performer who is then fired has a material impact on the bottom line but at some point and while not quite being in the same lane as a sunk cost falicy, if someone stops the bleeding should that be accounted for in the algorithm? (without making the algorithm top heavy with too much math)
This is less about justifying my own hiring/firing decisions and moreso trying to mentally explore the concept overall.
For those who haven't listed to the podcast the idea is at a manger level with a sufficient sized hiring decision pool (min 5 from the 'cast) is from a performance perspective those who exceed get 2 points, those who meet get 1, those who are below get a negative point in somewhat of a batting average math sense.