> The success of one person means the failure of another. In ideal world perf reviews should not degenerate into this. In real world, it is a zero-sum game. On

> The success of one person means the failure of another. In ideal world perf reviews should not degenerate into this. In real world, it is a zero-sum game. One example is that the budget for giving increments/hikes is always limited. To reward one individual means giving less to someone else. Second example is that of promotions. As you go up the ladder, there are fewer positions and competition is more. I can't see any other way but to stack rank the employees. The criteria used may be flawed, but that does not mean that ranking is not needed. Talking about criteria: if its too objective people will game it, if its too subjective then all sorts of human factors come into the play. Finding a solution for this has always been a holy grail and every now and then a company claims that "they-do-it-differently". Even if a company does this really well it only says about that point in time. It is a different thing to sustain that year over year. All companies have issues in their perf review. They only differ in toxicity.