Stack ranking sucks because it's extremely difficult to evaluate performance in IT other than broad company wide goals. Determining which developer had the grea

Stack ranking sucks because it's extremely difficult to evaluate performance in IT other than broad company wide goals. Determining which developer had the greatest impact is a fools game. Determining which sysadmin was responsible for five 9s of uptime, on and on. Too many people are good at gaming any metrics you set up. So what happens is the manager throws up his hands and evaluates you based on intangibles; how nice you are to him. How many people complain/praise you. How much friction people assign to working with you. All vague and all completely orthogonal to your true performance and value to an organization. As contributors figure this out (usually around year 5 or earlier unless they're socially clueless), they learn how to game this as well. "Managing up." Promoting themselves whenever possible, deflecting blame, avoiding risky projects that could tarnish a reputation, and for those with a Machiavellian mindset, sabotage coworkers. And while some managers might be able to detect this behavior, most in my experience don't. Most enjoy the flattery, and since they're usually not technical, or not versed in current technology, defer to whomever sounds the most authoritative.