2 ms·

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

by 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.

by Gunax 3y ago

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.