5 ms·

I have been working in HRTech for ~8+ years. "Most" of the tech companies operate that way - regardless if they are explicit about it or not. 9-Blocks, 360 degr

I have been working in HRTech for ~8+ years. "Most" of the tech companies operate that way - regardless if they are explicit about it or not. 9-Blocks, 360 degrees, etc are all exercises that have to fit a pre-defined distribution - i.e. "we expect at least 20% of the employees to be low performer". All the exercises of "team and department calibrations" are about to make sure the distribution fits the pre-defined/expected shape. Then some companies "act" on their low performers (stack ranking + policy of getting rid of the bottom 10% every year), some companies use perfomance-plans/other to "talent manage"

M_Grey 10y ago
Even the ones that don't operate that way seem to be filled with people who are convinced that it's all a zero-sum game... leading to the same essential result. The problem mainly seems to be that far from making any attempt to limit or corral that kind of behavior (and far worse) Uber either tacitly encouraged it, or almost psychotically ignored it.
rconti 10y ago
Do the employees know it? As far as I know, I've never worked at a company anything like this. But then it occurred to me maybe I just have no idea why I get whatever level of raise I get.
- openmosix 10y ago
  It depends on the company. The head of the department is aware. In some cases, the hiring manager might or might not be aware of the entire process ("HR told me to stack rank my direct reports / HR told me to put my team in these 9-blocks"). In large, large company that is typically a headline "Cisco has announced will lay off 500 people next Monday".
  - openmosix 10y ago
    Just to back it up a little: * Stack ranking at Cisco http://www.crn.com/slide-shows/networking/300075791/5-things-employees-love-about-cisco-and-5-they-dont.htm/pgno/0/2 http://www.crn.com/slide-shows/networking/300075791/5-things... * Stack ranking at Google https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Google-stack-rank-its-employees-despite-the-high-rate-of-disapproval-and-controversy-within-the-company https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Google-stack-rank-its-employe... * Stack ranking at Microsoft http://www.businessinsider.com/microsofts-old-employee-review-system-2014-8 http://www.businessinsider.com/microsofts-old-employee-revie... * Stack ranking at Amazon http://insights.dice.com/2016/11/15/amazon-may-end-stack-ranking-employees/ http://insights.dice.com/2016/11/15/amazon-may-end-stack-ran...
    - amaks 10y ago
      There is (almost) always stack ranking for the purposes of equity and bonus distributions, implicit or explicit. But there is also bottom xx% rule for people that must be given bad reviews and placed on PIP. In Microsoft 2000s it was mandatory rule to axe 10% of bottom performers within a team.
- maxxxxx 10y ago
  My company has 360s and ranking by different levels. the only thing they don't is to lay off the bottom 10%. They stay around. A team of purely top performers is not possible because they still have to fit on the curve.
  - piva00 10y ago
    That means that a team that on average has higher performers than another one is punishing their members where they could be top performers in another team? That doesn't make sense from an organizational point of view, you end up with teams that are on average worse than others but still treat the top 10% of team A the same as the top performers of the worse team B?
- analog31 10y ago
  Do the employees know it? In my view, the answer is yes. Today's employees are well connected, and we are no longer dependent on management for information. We might get our information from friends in management, peers who were once managers somewhere else, networking, and even HN. We can broaden our base of knowledge by assuming that most companies are managed in similar ways, due to shared training, culture, and networking among managers. I'm a former manager and now a regular employee. I understand the mechanics and politics of stack ranking from experience. At any given moment, the employees may understand the process better than their direct supervisors, because the employees have no limitations on how they gather information, whereas the managers are busy memorizing corporate talking points.
- mikekchar 10y ago
  Small companies often work differently, but this has been like this for as long as I can remember in larger companies (and I'm very nearly 50). Usually there is a budget allocation for raises. Managers rank their workers in ordinal fashion. It's often set in quartiles, lowest quarter is placed on the "must improve" list, second lowest gets no raise. Third lowest gets moderate increase (unless they are hitting the top of their band). Highest gets large increase/band increase. Often these sorted D level groups are mixed up in the C level and at the margins D levels can argue that their employees deserve to be bumped up to the next level (which is why it pays to document all your progress for the year -- it gives your manager ammunition when they compare you to other groups). Finally there are X spots for band increases/exceptional performers (which get paid above their band rate, but do not increase in band because their current function is essential to the team). Like I said, in large corporations it literally pays to have a politically savy manager and to have documented every single thing you've done during the year. Bonus points if you've condensed it down in a presentable fashion. I had a friend who made it into management in a large corporation. He decided to do things differently. He told his entire team, "Tell me how much money you want. I will tell you what you need to accomplish to get it." He documented the hell out of what his workers did. His team killed all the other teams -- just steamrolled them in terms of productivity, so he got everything he asked for. Made a lot of enemies, though ;-)
  - dikdik 10y ago
    >He told his entire team, "Tell me how much money you want. I will tell you what you need to accomplish to get it." This is my dream manager. I've never had a manager ask what they could do for me and actually mean it.
    - shostack 10y ago
      Because often, despite their wishes, it just isn't realistic. For example, if you are a support employee the answer to what you need to do to earn more may very well be "get a new job because support is only valued at X and so we'll never be able to justify paying you more."
amaks 10y ago
How many companies did you work at? I know Microsoft used to do that before they presumably got rid of bottom 10% concept.
- openmosix 10y ago
  I was a vendor of HRTech systems, so I worked with over 1,000 customers (large and small) implementing similar procedures.

M_Grey 10y ago

Even the ones that don't operate that way seem to be filled with people who are convinced that it's all a zero-sum game... leading to the same essential result. The problem mainly seems to be that far from making any attempt to limit or corral that kind of behavior (and far worse) Uber either tacitly encouraged it, or almost psychotically ignored it.

rconti 10y ago

Do the employees know it? As far as I know, I've never worked at a company anything like this. But then it occurred to me maybe I just have no idea why I get whatever level of raise I get.

openmosix 10y ago
It depends on the company. The head of the department is aware. In some cases, the hiring manager might or might not be aware of the entire process ("HR told me to stack rank my direct reports / HR told me to put my team in these 9-blocks"). In large, large company that is typically a headline "Cisco has announced will lay off 500 people next Monday".
- openmosix 10y ago
  Just to back it up a little: * Stack ranking at Cisco http://www.crn.com/slide-shows/networking/300075791/5-things-employees-love-about-cisco-and-5-they-dont.htm/pgno/0/2 http://www.crn.com/slide-shows/networking/300075791/5-things... * Stack ranking at Google https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Google-stack-rank-its-employees-despite-the-high-rate-of-disapproval-and-controversy-within-the-company https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Google-stack-rank-its-employe... * Stack ranking at Microsoft http://www.businessinsider.com/microsofts-old-employee-review-system-2014-8 http://www.businessinsider.com/microsofts-old-employee-revie... * Stack ranking at Amazon http://insights.dice.com/2016/11/15/amazon-may-end-stack-ranking-employees/ http://insights.dice.com/2016/11/15/amazon-may-end-stack-ran...
  - amaks 10y ago
    There is (almost) always stack ranking for the purposes of equity and bonus distributions, implicit or explicit. But there is also bottom xx% rule for people that must be given bad reviews and placed on PIP. In Microsoft 2000s it was mandatory rule to axe 10% of bottom performers within a team.
maxxxxx 10y ago
My company has 360s and ranking by different levels. the only thing they don't is to lay off the bottom 10%. They stay around. A team of purely top performers is not possible because they still have to fit on the curve.
- piva00 10y ago
  That means that a team that on average has higher performers than another one is punishing their members where they could be top performers in another team? That doesn't make sense from an organizational point of view, you end up with teams that are on average worse than others but still treat the top 10% of team A the same as the top performers of the worse team B?
analog31 10y ago
Do the employees know it? In my view, the answer is yes. Today's employees are well connected, and we are no longer dependent on management for information. We might get our information from friends in management, peers who were once managers somewhere else, networking, and even HN. We can broaden our base of knowledge by assuming that most companies are managed in similar ways, due to shared training, culture, and networking among managers. I'm a former manager and now a regular employee. I understand the mechanics and politics of stack ranking from experience. At any given moment, the employees may understand the process better than their direct supervisors, because the employees have no limitations on how they gather information, whereas the managers are busy memorizing corporate talking points.
mikekchar 10y ago
Small companies often work differently, but this has been like this for as long as I can remember in larger companies (and I'm very nearly 50). Usually there is a budget allocation for raises. Managers rank their workers in ordinal fashion. It's often set in quartiles, lowest quarter is placed on the "must improve" list, second lowest gets no raise. Third lowest gets moderate increase (unless they are hitting the top of their band). Highest gets large increase/band increase. Often these sorted D level groups are mixed up in the C level and at the margins D levels can argue that their employees deserve to be bumped up to the next level (which is why it pays to document all your progress for the year -- it gives your manager ammunition when they compare you to other groups). Finally there are X spots for band increases/exceptional performers (which get paid above their band rate, but do not increase in band because their current function is essential to the team). Like I said, in large corporations it literally pays to have a politically savy manager and to have documented every single thing you've done during the year. Bonus points if you've condensed it down in a presentable fashion. I had a friend who made it into management in a large corporation. He decided to do things differently. He told his entire team, "Tell me how much money you want. I will tell you what you need to accomplish to get it." He documented the hell out of what his workers did. His team killed all the other teams -- just steamrolled them in terms of productivity, so he got everything he asked for. Made a lot of enemies, though ;-)
- dikdik 10y ago
  >He told his entire team, "Tell me how much money you want. I will tell you what you need to accomplish to get it." This is my dream manager. I've never had a manager ask what they could do for me and actually mean it.
  - shostack 10y ago
    Because often, despite their wishes, it just isn't realistic. For example, if you are a support employee the answer to what you need to do to earn more may very well be "get a new job because support is only valued at X and so we'll never be able to justify paying you more."

amaks 10y ago

How many companies did you work at? I know Microsoft used to do that before they presumably got rid of bottom 10% concept.

openmosix 10y ago
I was a vendor of HRTech systems, so I worked with over 1,000 customers (large and small) implementing similar procedures.