July 20, 2012 at 12:45 pm
I have, but some management just lives for that kind of stuff though.:-D
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
July 20, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Well doesn't seem to be working for MS so far.
They'll probably say still needs more time.
July 20, 2012 at 1:04 pm
I've worked as a manager in a system like that - and I think it's terrible. I think it raises competition to a point that interferes with team collaboration, and ultimately interferes with people focusing on getting the job done. I agree that you have to set standards for performance, and hold people accountable for meeting and exceeding them - but more than a single person in a group can be an excellent performer. The team should win.
I believe this system also makes it hard to work with the fact that people by nature have different strengths and weaknesses. In my opinion, the best team is made up of people with complementary skills. That way, you examine problems from different approaches because your team members look at reaching the same goal from different perspectives.
July 20, 2012 at 1:34 pm
Well said, I believe that this is tantamount to publishing everyone's salary in the lunchroom, that is how much havoc this causes within a team. But I can understand why Mickeysoft endorses this kind of thing, it's their mentality about people in general. People are resources to be used by Mickeysoft, nothing more. They also yell at people in their field engineer interviews as well, so go figure. Been there, done that. 😀
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
July 20, 2012 at 1:56 pm
We used this system at Phillips Petroleum when I was there in the 80's.
The one year I got ranked a 5 my manager said next year he would give it to someone else.
What an incentive to work!
Oh well they layed me off 6 months later.
July 20, 2012 at 2:00 pm
TDS DBA (7/20/2012)
I've worked as a manager in a system like that - and I think it's terrible. I think it raises competition to a point that interferes with team collaboration, and ultimately interferes with people focusing on getting the job done. I agree that you have to set standards for performance, and hold people accountable for meeting and exceeding them - but more than a single person in a group can be an excellent performer. The team should win.I believe this system also makes it hard to work with the fact that people by nature have different strengths and weaknesses. In my opinion, the best team is made up of people with complementary skills. That way, you examine problems from different approaches because your team members look at reaching the same goal from different perspectives.
Excellent put in every way. Completely agree. "Death to the stack system!"
July 20, 2012 at 2:46 pm
No one company hires all " 5's ". Except Google of course, just ask them... You hire for attitude first, then aptitutude, assuming you wrote the job description and ad accurately you will be speaking to folks who have the aptitude based on their resume and your reference checking. Once you make the commitment to hire, absent flagrant misrepresentation, it is the managers job to create the environment where they can all be at least 3's, hopefully 4's and 5's. I think it possible to have a group of higher performers (3's or better), why not? If not, the manager needs to up his/her game, or make changes to staff. Over time, what was a good skill fit may no longer be. Except Google, who only hire's 5's - just ask them.. maybe that's why your bosses are convinced there can only be ONE 3 and ONE four and ONE five; they drink that Google Koolaid. 🙂
July 20, 2012 at 2:51 pm
As usual, this type of question has a number of levels that one could answer. Generally speaking we all work in companies where people fit different performance levels. NOBODY works for a company where everyone is a 5 unless there are only one or two people employed. One issue wiht business today is that managers are lazy and don't want to differentiate between people. They end up giving everyone the same rating, and everyone gets the same raise, and everyone eventually stops working as hard as they would if they felt their performance mattered. Yes, there are people who ignore it to some degree, but I don't believe anyone can set aside issues like this for too long before they start making adjustments in their attitude, or leave the company. Maybe it is just longer lunches, breaks, more talking about sports, but it manifests in some way.
As to forcing managers to limit how many people are in each category, and arbitrarily placing people in categories based on those limits, no I would not want that. I have always been rated a 5 in every job I have ever done. It is who I am. I know others who are the same way, many of whom are far better than I am at what they do. If that meant I could only get a 4, or even a 3, simply because of numbers of employees, I would not be there very long. Odds are eventually they really would only have one 5, as all the other 5s would find other employment until only one was left.
On the other hand, companies that use 1-5 and then rate people fairly, frequently still don't offer any true benefit to being a 5. What reason do I have to work harder if I get a 5 and a 3% raise, while someone with a 3 also gets a 3% raise? Even if the raise is 5%, 10% or 15%, if we all get the same raise why should I work hard?
Another point you made is that there are employees who are a 3 or 4 that do good work, and that we need. I agree. Our payroll person retired recently, she was a solid 3. Great worker, didn't do anything special, but you could count on her to do her job every week. Nothing ever changed, she was never asked to take on new tasks, but the job was boring! I can't do that job, and probably few if any of those reading this could do that job. Demanding a high performer would result in that job having extreme turnover.
Now as to 1s and 2s - I say you mentor or coach them for 90 days and them fire them.
Most of us are familiar with the graph where you rate risks - likelihood versus cost - and each quadrant holds risks, you focus on high cost likely ones first. A manager I know once told me that you can rate people the same way - attitude and performance, or any other two factors - and that you fire the ones in the lower left corner, keep the ones in the upper right, and mentor or fire those in the upper left and bottom right. While I disagree with that attitude, their point was that everyone should be a top performer. That is essentially what this rating system is shooting for. I believe it doesn't work, causes unnecessary stress and fighting amongst co-workes, and ultimately will fail.
Dave
July 20, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Gary Jones (7/20/2012)
As a techniucal hiring manager, I strive to hire only the best, the 1s. If I make a hiring mistake, and I have made a couple in 50 years in the field, I correct the problem immediately. That being said, how do I rate people as a 1,2, 3, 4, or 5 at the end of a rating period. The whole forced distribution system of rating staff is detrimental to maintaining a high quality staff. As I look at young companies that I worked for, there was no forced distribution until HR staff was added. I can't help but wonder if distribution is to help HR justify their existence. The concept sounds like something devised by a 5, who should have disappeared long before his/her rating was due.Gary Jones
Wow, your system is exactly opposite of every one I have heard of. Normally a 1 is bad and a 5 is good.
Dave
July 21, 2012 at 3:09 pm
j_e_o (7/20/2012)
I absolutely would not want to work in a company that uses a stack ranking system. Unfortunately, I do work for such a company.
Well said ;-). And I am right there with you.
I don't have time to read this entire thread but from what I skimmed it seems that there is almost complete agreement that this is a rather dreadful system. The company I work for started doing this 3 years ago while prior to that they simply rated you, by yourself, in several categories and then averaged the number. This made sense as my rating had nothing to do with anyone else (for the most part given that humans have a hard time evaluating something without measuring it against something else as a base-line). But then we switched to this system and have been told that 10% of the people will be a 1 or a 2, 70% will be a 3, and 20% will be a 4 or a 5. And the pool of people for that distribution is a mix of your team and what you do (so I am on 2 teams but am also a Database Engineer and there are DBE's on other teams so I am rated against direct team members and the other DBE's). And it does not matter if 7 of us are truly a 4 or 5 and the other 3 are really 3's, the manager has no choice but to distribute the rankings. I have told my manager for the past 2 years that this system is insane, demoralizing, and counter-productive. My only guess is that someone very high up (and hence would never be ranked in this system) felt like we needed to do this as other large companies like IBM and Microsoft do this, hence it is a legit method.
And about a year or so ago we started doing 360 reviews on our peers and direct manager. I'm sure someone in HR or management is patting themselves on the back for this and is adding it to their resume.
SQL# — https://SQLsharp.com/ ( SQLCLR library ofover 340 Functions and Procedures)
Sql Quantum Lift — https://SqlQuantumLift.com/ ( company )
Sql Quantum Leap — https://SqlQuantumLeap.com/ ( blog )
Info sites — Collations • Module Signing • SQLCLR
July 21, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Michael Valentine Jones (7/20/2012)
Harsh ranking systems are very common in sales.Someone told me about an automobile dealer he worked for where every month they started with 13 salesmen and at the end of each month, they let the three with the lowest sales go, and hired three new ones.
The result was that around the end of month they would fight over customers like sharks with chum in the water, and it was virtually impossible for someone to leave without buying a car.
They had valet parking and would take cars and drive them blocks away and never return them so that people were stuck there until they bought something. They would tell customers that the valet would be back with their car soon and just continue trying to make a sale until they broke down.
My response would be, "If I'm not able to drive my car off this lot in the same condition we arrived in 5 minutes or less, you, your manager, and the person who stole my car are all going to jail. Your choice, Homer."
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 21, 2012 at 4:58 pm
I've found that managers that use things like "Stack Systems" frequently have no idea of how to actually rate performance.
It would be also interesting if companies that use a Stack System would also use the reverse system... where the hired help gets to rate everyone from immediate supervisor up through the CEO and the Board.
If you want to see people perform well, keep managment off their backs and enable them do their jobs better.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 23, 2012 at 1:28 am
Yes, this sounds a like a horrible work environment. I am competitive in so far as I want to do the best job that I can. Also, I would like to hope that my colleagues would regard me as someone they value and would choose to approach with any issues that they need help with. This system seems to promote a "Dog eat Dog" environment. I don't think that is how IT should be.
July 23, 2012 at 2:06 am
This system seems to be predicated on hiring a spread of 1-5 people in the first place. If all applicants are in the 4-5 group do you hire these the push down some of them. Alternatively if all applicants are in the 1-2 group do you hire these and develop some on them to higher levels. Seems to me to be a totally crazy way to assess staff. It feels a completely arbitary and subjective process based on little evidence.
No I wouldn't work for such an organisation. A system to support dynamic and motivated staff would be my preference.
July 23, 2012 at 8:20 am
Regardless of that formal methodology is used for appraisals, I expect that most managers mentally "stack rank" the employees in their department anyhow. What we're talking about here is a process that makes it more transparent; at least the team members know where they stand.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 77 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply