6 ms·

Not to mention that eventually you end up firing some really smart people and find worse replacements (not in the least due to shitty reputation - but also beca

Not to mention that eventually you end up firing some really smart people and find worse replacements (not in the least due to shitty reputation - but also because of regression to the mean and because people are biased towards hiring worse than themselves in this regime). Definitely so at 10% p.a. if you're in a remotely niche industry.

jpatokal 8y ago
Apparently some managers used to hire sacrificial lambs with the express purpose of culling them to spare the rest of the team.
- duaoebg 8y ago
  Can confirm
  - genericone 8y ago
    Were the sacrificial lambs at least told in secret that they were 'hired in order to be laid off' at the next round? I hope they were not just given rote tasks, but allowed to explore their skills while they are in limbo so that they can train-up or look for jobs... Nah that's just wishful thinking.
    - whatshisface 8y ago
      Telling someone they're going to be laid off and having them build skills both reduce their "goal performance," thereby serving the purpose of justifiably lowering their stack rank. I can imagine hiring some smart guy with a good resume, then telling him congratulations he just won a year's supply of O'Riley books.
      - toomuchtodo 8y ago
        "I don't even have to come into the office, I can do this job from home."
    - duaoebg 8y ago
      If the ‘lamb’ is unfamiliar with the concept there is no hint you could give that would not also open you up to lawsuits. When I was told that I wasn’t good enough by my new boss and should look for another job on my first day, I thought it was ridiculous, and that it would be possible to change her mind. She was not my hiring boss due to a reorganization that happened just before I started. I hung on for a year and the stress literally nearly killed me, I ended up quitting for health reasons. I got the lowest ranking you could get in what I believe to be the shortest amount of time in the company’s history. The funny thing is is that I’m a freakish prodigy at my work and after a successful stint at a different company, I ended up back at the same company at much much higher position. Hating companies like this is like hating a snake that bit you... it’s a snake. At least in the US the money is better. If I could give advice to anyone who finds themselves in a similar position it would be that failure is not the end and not always your fault. And probably find a new job sooner rather than later.
      - whatshisface 8y ago
        >Hating companies like this is like hating a snake that bit you... That's true, but in this case it's pretty clear that one defective personality in particular was responsible.
- foxhop 8y ago
  I think this happened to me at one point.
guiambros 8y ago
Additionally, when the stack ranking is done at the first or second-level manager (which is usually the case), you end up making sub-optimal decisions. Meaning: the bottom 10% on team A may be better than the top 20% of team B. Which then leads A-players to seek to work on B-teams, so they can be on the top of the stack ranking. Stack ranking is a failed experiment, and by now I think all companies realize that.
- cryptonector 8y ago
  It won't be over until Harvard, Wharton, and all the other top business schools teach that stack ranking is destructive. Jack Welch is a blithering idiot if he still believes in stack ranking. I've a feeling that the reason a CEO of a company like GE would like stack ranking is the false sensation of control it must give them. In reality, one of the key reasons you have managers in the first place is that management is a people problem, so you need people to manage people, and managers need to get to know the people they manage.

jpatokal 8y ago

Apparently some managers used to hire sacrificial lambs with the express purpose of culling them to spare the rest of the team.

duaoebg 8y ago
Can confirm
- genericone 8y ago
  Were the sacrificial lambs at least told in secret that they were 'hired in order to be laid off' at the next round? I hope they were not just given rote tasks, but allowed to explore their skills while they are in limbo so that they can train-up or look for jobs... Nah that's just wishful thinking.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    Telling someone they're going to be laid off and having them build skills both reduce their "goal performance," thereby serving the purpose of justifiably lowering their stack rank. I can imagine hiring some smart guy with a good resume, then telling him congratulations he just won a year's supply of O'Riley books.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      "I don't even have to come into the office, I can do this job from home."
  - duaoebg 8y ago
    If the ‘lamb’ is unfamiliar with the concept there is no hint you could give that would not also open you up to lawsuits. When I was told that I wasn’t good enough by my new boss and should look for another job on my first day, I thought it was ridiculous, and that it would be possible to change her mind. She was not my hiring boss due to a reorganization that happened just before I started. I hung on for a year and the stress literally nearly killed me, I ended up quitting for health reasons. I got the lowest ranking you could get in what I believe to be the shortest amount of time in the company’s history. The funny thing is is that I’m a freakish prodigy at my work and after a successful stint at a different company, I ended up back at the same company at much much higher position. Hating companies like this is like hating a snake that bit you... it’s a snake. At least in the US the money is better. If I could give advice to anyone who finds themselves in a similar position it would be that failure is not the end and not always your fault. And probably find a new job sooner rather than later.
    - whatshisface 8y ago
      >Hating companies like this is like hating a snake that bit you... That's true, but in this case it's pretty clear that one defective personality in particular was responsible.
foxhop 8y ago
I think this happened to me at one point.

guiambros 8y ago

Additionally, when the stack ranking is done at the first or second-level manager (which is usually the case), you end up making sub-optimal decisions. Meaning: the bottom 10% on team A may be better than the top 20% of team B. Which then leads A-players to seek to work on B-teams, so they can be on the top of the stack ranking. Stack ranking is a failed experiment, and by now I think all companies realize that.

cryptonector 8y ago
It won't be over until Harvard, Wharton, and all the other top business schools teach that stack ranking is destructive. Jack Welch is a blithering idiot if he still believes in stack ranking. I've a feeling that the reason a CEO of a company like GE would like stack ranking is the false sensation of control it must give them. In reality, one of the key reasons you have managers in the first place is that management is a people problem, so you need people to manage people, and managers need to get to know the people they manage.