5 ms·

The problem isn't ranking people, it's how they determine the score. That's not the problem either. The real problem is stack ranking is a morale killer. You

by tsotha 14y ago

The problem isn't ranking people, it's how they determine the score. That's not the problem either. The real problem is stack ranking is a morale killer. You get rid of the bottom ten percent and then the top ten percent says "Damn, every day I come to work I feel like there's this black cloud hanging over the cube farm. This place sucks, and I can get a job anywhere I want!" Then they do. So you're left with the middle - people who do their job reasonably well and aren't dumb enough to take risks that might get them downgraded. Projects that are in trouble can't be turned around because the best (remaining) people stay away. And the people who couldn't get away find other jobs. I saw this happen on a project at a financial company I worked for. They needed eight or ten developers and went through at least twenty in the space of a year. Does Microsoft have well-motivated top talent? It certainly doesn't show in the product lineup.

matwood 14y ago
The real problem is stack ranking is a morale killer. Depends. I've been on teams where the weak links are the morale killer. Busting my ass while watching people do little and continue with a job or worse yet get the team accolades made me leave my last job. Does Microsoft have well-motivated top talent? It certainly doesn't show in the product lineup. This is a completely separate issue. I would argue that MSs problems have nothing to do with engineering talent. Their problems stem from the management side with Balmer being problem number one. Doesn't Google also do some form of employee ranking? They seem to also have plenty of talent. Google though has side stepped needing great management by being data focused to a fault. This has made them better than MS in some ways, but worse in others. So you're left with the middle - people who do their job reasonably well and aren't dumb enough to take risks that might get them downgraded. Projects that are in trouble can't be turned around because the best (remaining) people stay away. And the people who couldn't get away find other jobs. I saw this happen on a project at a financial company I worked for. They needed eight or ten developers and went through at least twenty in the space of a year. You're right that it's not always the best solution. First, a company needs to be at the top of their field so they are attracting top talent. If Joe Bobs software attempted stack ranking they are going to fail because they are not the big leagues. No one goes to work there expecting it to be that way. People who work at the Googles and MSs of the world expect that environment and are rewarded well when they thrive. At the end of the day, coming in at the bottom of one of the premier software companies isn't necessarily a bad thing. I regret not trying to get a job at one when I was younger just to see if I could hack it. At the time though my priorities were different.

by tsotha 14y ago

matwood 14y ago

The real problem is stack ranking is a morale killer. Depends. I've been on teams where the weak links are the morale killer. Busting my ass while watching people do little and continue with a job or worse yet get the team accolades made me leave my last job. Does Microsoft have well-motivated top talent? It certainly doesn't show in the product lineup. This is a completely separate issue. I would argue that MSs problems have nothing to do with engineering talent. Their problems stem from the management side with Balmer being problem number one. Doesn't Google also do some form of employee ranking? They seem to also have plenty of talent. Google though has side stepped needing great management by being data focused to a fault. This has made them better than MS in some ways, but worse in others. So you're left with the middle - people who do their job reasonably well and aren't dumb enough to take risks that might get them downgraded. Projects that are in trouble can't be turned around because the best (remaining) people stay away. And the people who couldn't get away find other jobs. I saw this happen on a project at a financial company I worked for. They needed eight or ten developers and went through at least twenty in the space of a year. You're right that it's not always the best solution. First, a company needs to be at the top of their field so they are attracting top talent. If Joe Bobs software attempted stack ranking they are going to fail because they are not the big leagues. No one goes to work there expecting it to be that way. People who work at the Googles and MSs of the world expect that environment and are rewarded well when they thrive. At the end of the day, coming in at the bottom of one of the premier software companies isn't necessarily a bad thing. I regret not trying to get a job at one when I was younger just to see if I could hack it. At the time though my priorities were different.