4 ms·

So, what, you're opposed to people talking about how they think large organizations should work instead of how they actually work? There are about two dozen pe

So, what, you're opposed to people talking about how they think large organizations should work instead of how they actually work? There are about two dozen people in this thread that you should be directing your comments to. But also: If we're talking about an organization where it is impossible for a manager of, say, a 100-200 person department to figure out who the 10-20 worst people are across his entire department -- where he's helpless and just has to say, "Well, I don't know, I'll punt down to my lower-level managers," that's prima facia evidence of a dysfunctional org. What is the doctrine that you feel is going to lead to better termination decisions in that org?

dragonwriter 10y ago
> So, what, you're opposed to people talking about how they think large organizations should work instead of how they actually work? Stack ranking is based on forced rankings of employees by managers who are familiar enough with them to theoretically be able to provide an ordinal rank of their performance. There is no way this works in large groups, it only works in small subunits. If you have actual objective measures of business-meaningful performance, you have to throw away a lot of the meaningful data to reduce it to a ordinal ranking and use it for stack ranking, which is why organizations that do have such measures use them for more useful accountability than is provided by stack ranking.