3 ms·

The whole "fitting on a curve" thing is so awful and so stupid, tech companies engaging in it should be ashamed. It's like asking to rank every player on a soc

The whole "fitting on a curve" thing is so awful and so stupid, tech companies engaging in it should be ashamed. It's like asking to rank every player on a soccer team. Gotta get rid of the goalkeeper because we decided to stack rank every one on goals - disregarding that everyone plays a different role on the team and the team can only win together.

dasil003 3y ago
This is not a good analogy as professional sports is much easier to assess performance and also much much more ruthless in terms of being cut.
- nine_zeros 3y ago
  Yes, it is not perfect analogy but it describes what team dynamics mean. Which is to say that team members work "together" to achieve goals. They are not competing against each other - as evaluated by performance review processes.
- cloche 3y ago
  It's also not a good analogy because it compares across positions. Someone in marketing would not be compared against an engineer.
  - mango7283 3y ago
    No this is on point. Managers often have multiple people on different roles but are still forced to stack rank them as if they are equally comparable. The analogy is sound and illustrates the problem.
  - nine_zeros 3y ago
    Marketing is a different job function, on a different team - in both engineering and in soccer. You are thinking members of the same team (soccer/engineering) vs members of different teams (marketing)
  - mango7283 3y ago
    Also, you do realise that then on the same team the engineers may not be doing 1-1 comparable work right?
Gunax 3y ago
Unfortunately, I think it's the only way to do it. Corporate incentives are weird. Firing people is tough. If you don't force it, people find a way to just go along with the status quo. If you let them, managers all report that their teams are just super high functioning. And that path leads to mediocrity. Just like how the peer rating system devolved into bland platitudes. From an executive's standpoint, where you are looking at thousands of individuals with no way to tell, I completely understand it. And you accept that some unfairness will happen. People will be fired because they happen to be the lowest on a high-ranking team. You accept that's unfortunate, but the alternative is worse. One reason your soccer analogy doesn't apply to a corporation is the scale--sports teams have a few dozen members. It's possible to know them all.
- nine_zeros 3y ago
  I hear you from an executive's perspective. Executives are too far removed. But this is why even with a smaller scale of soccer teams (25 first team+25 reserve players), soccer teams don't force a stack rank instituted by the executive. They let the manager do hiring and firing decisions BUT, the manager is going to be on the chopping block for not achieving the team's goals - not the players. This leads to two benefits 1. The people closest to the game make hiring/firing decisions based on team dynamics, team goals, age group mix, tactics, and budget. A distant executive doesn't make these choices and doesn't force a stack rank just because... 2. And, the manager is always held responsible for successes and failures. That is the job and what the big bucks are for. Every level of manager is responsible for a job function and will be on the chopping block first the higher they go.
  - Gunax 3y ago
    So I think your points 1 & 2 apply whether stack ranking is implemented or not. Either way, the direct managers decide who to fire, not an executive. The difference stack ranking makes is not who to fire, but whether anyone is going to be fired. In theory, the manager is on the chopping block. But in reality, success is difficult to measure in business. Often the contributions of orgs are subtle and difficult to measure. The effects are often only apparent years later, if ever.
tengbretson 3y ago
Look into "wins above replacement" value calculations. It can be done.
- nine_zeros 3y ago
  Aha, but a "wins above replacement" is a metric that can be calculated in the world of baseball where 1. Every player is guaranteed to bat. Baseball players are largely fungible, except the pitcher maybe. Soccer is not like that since different players play completely different roles. In fact, there are players in soccer whose entire mandate is to not attack (and thus not score goals) 2. Even if you find such a metric in soccer, both these games have the advantage that engineering doesn't have - a bounded set of rules. Engineering is too creative, too experimental, and relies on innovation and agility.

dasil003 3y ago

This is not a good analogy as professional sports is much easier to assess performance and also much much more ruthless in terms of being cut.

nine_zeros 3y ago
Yes, it is not perfect analogy but it describes what team dynamics mean. Which is to say that team members work "together" to achieve goals. They are not competing against each other - as evaluated by performance review processes.
cloche 3y ago
It's also not a good analogy because it compares across positions. Someone in marketing would not be compared against an engineer.
- mango7283 3y ago
  No this is on point. Managers often have multiple people on different roles but are still forced to stack rank them as if they are equally comparable. The analogy is sound and illustrates the problem.
- nine_zeros 3y ago
  Marketing is a different job function, on a different team - in both engineering and in soccer. You are thinking members of the same team (soccer/engineering) vs members of different teams (marketing)
- mango7283 3y ago
  Also, you do realise that then on the same team the engineers may not be doing 1-1 comparable work right?

Gunax 3y ago

Unfortunately, I think it's the only way to do it. Corporate incentives are weird. Firing people is tough. If you don't force it, people find a way to just go along with the status quo. If you let them, managers all report that their teams are just super high functioning. And that path leads to mediocrity. Just like how the peer rating system devolved into bland platitudes. From an executive's standpoint, where you are looking at thousands of individuals with no way to tell, I completely understand it. And you accept that some unfairness will happen. People will be fired because they happen to be the lowest on a high-ranking team. You accept that's unfortunate, but the alternative is worse. One reason your soccer analogy doesn't apply to a corporation is the scale--sports teams have a few dozen members. It's possible to know them all.

nine_zeros 3y ago
I hear you from an executive's perspective. Executives are too far removed. But this is why even with a smaller scale of soccer teams (25 first team+25 reserve players), soccer teams don't force a stack rank instituted by the executive. They let the manager do hiring and firing decisions BUT, the manager is going to be on the chopping block for not achieving the team's goals - not the players. This leads to two benefits 1. The people closest to the game make hiring/firing decisions based on team dynamics, team goals, age group mix, tactics, and budget. A distant executive doesn't make these choices and doesn't force a stack rank just because... 2. And, the manager is always held responsible for successes and failures. That is the job and what the big bucks are for. Every level of manager is responsible for a job function and will be on the chopping block first the higher they go.
- Gunax 3y ago
  So I think your points 1 & 2 apply whether stack ranking is implemented or not. Either way, the direct managers decide who to fire, not an executive. The difference stack ranking makes is not who to fire, but whether anyone is going to be fired. In theory, the manager is on the chopping block. But in reality, success is difficult to measure in business. Often the contributions of orgs are subtle and difficult to measure. The effects are often only apparent years later, if ever.

tengbretson 3y ago

Look into "wins above replacement" value calculations. It can be done.

nine_zeros 3y ago
Aha, but a "wins above replacement" is a metric that can be calculated in the world of baseball where 1. Every player is guaranteed to bat. Baseball players are largely fungible, except the pitcher maybe. Soccer is not like that since different players play completely different roles. In fact, there are players in soccer whose entire mandate is to not attack (and thus not score goals) 2. Even if you find such a metric in soccer, both these games have the advantage that engineering doesn't have - a bounded set of rules. Engineering is too creative, too experimental, and relies on innovation and agility.