This sounds like one of those ideas that works well in a one off context but has side effects in a relatively big one.
Using a bell curve might be more technically correct, but the overall idea is too force the person making a judgement to make a judgment. The reality is that some employees are better than others. Getting a manager to rank them will give you better results than getting a manager to rate them. Neither are perfect. One is sensitive to the manager's biases, the other breaks when one team is better than another.
If you went to a one hundred person company with 10 managers and asked them to do this one day, you would probably end up with a fairly accurate view of who is worth what. Most one hundred person companies would be improved by replacing the bottom 5-20 people and damaged by replacing the top 5-20.
If this wasn't about employees, I don't think it would be controversial. Imagine a company with 100 clients ranked them and then decided to give special attention the 10 best while ignoring the 10 worst.
The problem with this (like most compensation schemes) is how they affect employees when they find out. People have strong reactions to being ranked and measured.
> Using a bell curve might be more technically correct
But it's not. That's what's so maddeningly stupid about it. Who gives a fuck if your employees are better or worse than one another? The only question that matters is whether they're doing the job you need done to the standard you need it done to. Arbitarily punishing some percentage of your team even though they're doing a great job is madness.
The bell curve suggests that in a group of 20 employees, #8 & #12 perform similarly. #1 probably performs a lot better than #4. Thats what I meant by more technically correct.
"the standard you need it done to" doesn't really fit the model of what MS do. "great job" is relative. Anyway, the whole thing probably carries some assumptions. Some employees are great. Some stink. It's unlikely that a team of 20 will have a couple of stinkers. Employees #19 & #20 are adding little (or negative) benefit.
It's dehumanising. I agree. So are all management practices at companies big enough. It may also be wrong considering how it affects morale and how it affects productivity when people try to game it (seeking out weak teams).
I just meant that I can see where it comes from. It would make just as much sense if you asked a restaurant owner to rank his mains. Out of 15 mains, 2-3 are probably stars that people come specifically to eat. 10 are OK. 2-3 suck, they make people not come back.
> "Out of 15 mains, 2-3 are probably stars that people come specifically to eat. 10 are OK. 2-3 suck, they make people not come back."
Then fire them. It's also important to note that the 2-3 who suck suck in relation to a consistent standard, not in relation to the other employees.
There is a fundamental disconnect between the justification of stack ranking and the actuality of stack ranking. In a sufficiently large population of employees you get some duds - that's a statistical certainty. The giant leap and non sequitor is that relatively ranking will expose said duds better than measuring against a consistent, non-relative bar.
Where I work right now we've had the displeasure of having hired some duds. Very few mind you, but in all cases they were let go soon after it became apparent they were duds and could not be reasonably improved. All of this was done without the need for stack ranking, and (thankfully) outside the scope of some annual remove. If you've hired someone who's actively detracting from your company, why in the frell are you waiting a whole year to remove them?!
The other problem is that in a 100,000 person company there are many nuanced roles and where one person fails or struggles in one context, they may well excel in ten others. It's a lot harder to accurately measure overall performance when the manager is biased and the employee may well have been strong-armed or pigeonholed into their current position.
This only works for large populations doing exactly the same job and even them it will only work once as after the first time as the population is no longer random.
Using a bell curve might be more technically correct, but the overall idea is too force the person making a judgement to make a judgment. The reality is that some employees are better than others. Getting a manager to rank them will give you better results than getting a manager to rate them. Neither are perfect. One is sensitive to the manager's biases, the other breaks when one team is better than another.
If you went to a one hundred person company with 10 managers and asked them to do this one day, you would probably end up with a fairly accurate view of who is worth what. Most one hundred person companies would be improved by replacing the bottom 5-20 people and damaged by replacing the top 5-20.
If this wasn't about employees, I don't think it would be controversial. Imagine a company with 100 clients ranked them and then decided to give special attention the 10 best while ignoring the 10 worst.
The problem with this (like most compensation schemes) is how they affect employees when they find out. People have strong reactions to being ranked and measured.