4 ms·
> Teams that are all high performing are super rare, and tend to be really, really, really obvious within a company. Teams that don't fit a normal distribution
by sheepmullet 10y ago
> Teams that are all high performing are super rare, and tend to be really, really, really obvious within a company.
Teams that don't fit a normal distribution are incredibly common.
And I think the bigger problem is money allocated for pay increases.
If the average 3 rating employee in your team can get a 10% annualised return each time they change jobs then the company should be budgeting 10% for a grade of 3. In practice this doesn't happen.
- sheepmullet 10y agoNot to mention a grade of 4 or 5 easily takes 2x the effort of a grade of 3. Yet it will get you maybe 2-5% more pay. I see lots of new devs working at way under capacity because it's just not worthwhile for them to work harder for a company.
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago> Teams that don't fit a normal distribution are incredibly common. This doesn't make a team of high performing folks any less rare because extremes tend to be rare. It just means that reality doesn't always look like the average. You might have no high performers but 5 average ones, or 2 high performers and 3 below average (maybe they are just learning?). One team out of many being high performers might just be luck or a good manager, for sure, but it definitely warrants checking things out because of the rarity. The same would go for an entire team that is below par without obvious reason. It might not even be an issue with the supervising manager themselves, but with the way the company scores that sort of team.
- aetherson 10y ago> Teams that don't fit a normal distribution are incredibly common. > > Now, is it a valid criticism of stack ranking that it makes it not just difficult but impossible to describe a team that's solidly above average? Yes, absolutely. Stack ranking is kind of dumb.