4 ms·
The other key component of stack ranking was that it's on a per team basis. A team of 20 people may have no low performers. An org of 400 probably has a couple
by joshuamorton 4y ago
The other key component of stack ranking was that it's on a per team basis.
A team of 20 people may have no low performers. An org of 400 probably has a couple, at some point the law of large numbers does really start to apply, and you're no longer in competition with the people you're working with on the daily.
If one member of your two-pizza team is going to get fired each year, it makes sense to throw someone under the bus on the reg. If one member of your 100 person org is going to get fired each year, that strategy doesn't make sense.
- evgen 4y agoHaving endured several such calibration sessions at FB/Meta I can also assure you that we are not even talking about 'large' numbers before there is a strong expectation that the ranking totals within an org will meet the predicted curve when it comes to the percentage at exceeds, meets, and meets most. I distinctly remember wasting more than 15 minutes of my life arguing with a skip level manager that someone who had course corrected and delivered solid work while digging themselves out of a PIP was at least a meets before eventually realizing this manager had a quota of meets most to fill and the person we were discussing was destined for that bucket just to make the numbers look as expected.
- dustingetz 4y agoas a manager what do you say there to the report
- fn-mote 4y agoPolish your resume, the guillotine is coming and there's nothing I can do to save you. I tried for you, remember me when your next job is hiring managers.
- disgruntledphd2 4y agoOr if you know a team is hiring internally then push them towards that. Ideally you'd do this before calibration so the rating doesn't mess it up.