Reid Hoffman Quotes

The important thing is to get the right players on the team so Mike can be successful.

As much as we think of performance management as numeric and thus perfectly quantifiable, it is as much a product of context and social science as the products we design and develop.

Eliminate numerical quotas, including Management by Objectives.

Build an environment that empowers your team to take risks. Set metrics for what needs to be achieved and measure against them to track progress along the way. If targets aren't being met, challenge your team to reassess and come back with a new strategy. And create a culture where people are awarded for challenging the status quo.

You have to take care of your guys. If a guy underperforms, you get rid of him. If a guy overperforms, you take care of him.

And I believe in having an administration that has clearly defined goals, objectives and time lines such that it and its people can be held accountable.

The skilful employer of men will employ the wise man, the brave man, the covetous man, and the stupid man.

The emphasis on innovation and technology in our companies has resulted in a few of them establishing global benchmarks in product design and development, manufacturing practices and human resource capabilities. However, there is no room for complacency.

You have to be able to communicate the vision to the people in your organization so that they know where and how they should direct themselves on a day-to-day basis.

Imagine if you had baseball cards that showed all the performance stats for your people: batting averages, home runs, errors, ERAs, win/loss records. You could see what they did well and poorly and call on the right people to play the right positions in a very transparent way.

What you measure and reward is what you're going to get.

In setting goals and executing a strategy, Wanda is sophisticated. We have good systems and departments. If targets are not reached, a yellow light goes off.

Managing is getting paid for home runs that someone else hits.

If I had my way, I wouldn't do annual reviews, if I felt that everybody would be more honest about positive and negative feedback along the way. I think the annual review process is so antiquated.

My view is that targets, properly constructed and applied across public services have been fundamental to past successes and will be an essential part of sustaining progress into the future.

Done right, a performance review is one of the best opportunities to encourage and support high performers and constructively improve your middle- and lower-tier workers.

Your time as a manager is finite and valuable.

I try to motivate people and align our individual incentives with organizational incentives. And then let people do their best.

You measure your people and you take action on those that don't measure up.

You got to be rigorous in your appraisal system. The biggest cowards are managers who don't let people know where they stand.

What gets measured, gets done….Results measurement is now mainstreamed

Traditional performance reviews have passed their sell-by date. Big time. There's research showing that roughly two-thirds of performance appraisals have either no effect - or a negative effect! - on employee performance.

A lot of companies lock up for a few weeks once a year for performance reviews. But there's a way to collect feedback in real time from Slack so that by the end of the year, you've already stored up all of this information.

Look at what is average in your area, your industry, and your company and then be better. That could be as simple as reading another book each month or attending a seminar each year. On the other hand, it also means acknowledging what 'average' actually is and how you, as the owner, arrive at that figure.

As leaders, we've all seen the painful effects of team members not keeping pace with company growth - it's called up-leveling, and it's all too common when a company goes from zero to something to hopefully an IPO.