4 ms·

The bell curve suggests that in a group of 20 employees, #8 & #12 perform similarly. #1 probably performs a lot better than #4. Thats what I meant by more techn

by netcan 13y ago

The bell curve suggests that in a group of 20 employees, #8 & #12 perform similarly. #1 probably performs a lot better than #4. Thats what I meant by more technically correct. "the standard you need it done to" doesn't really fit the model of what MS do. "great job" is relative. Anyway, the whole thing probably carries some assumptions. Some employees are great. Some stink. It's unlikely that a team of 20 will have a couple of stinkers. Employees #19 & #20 are adding little (or negative) benefit. It's dehumanising. I agree. So are all management practices at companies big enough. It may also be wrong considering how it affects morale and how it affects productivity when people try to game it (seeking out weak teams). I just meant that I can see where it comes from. It would make just as much sense if you asked a restaurant owner to rank his mains. Out of 15 mains, 2-3 are probably stars that people come specifically to eat. 10 are OK. 2-3 suck, they make people not come back.

potatolicious 13y ago
> "Out of 15 mains, 2-3 are probably stars that people come specifically to eat. 10 are OK. 2-3 suck, they make people not come back." Then fire them. It's also important to note that the 2-3 who suck suck in relation to a consistent standard, not in relation to the other employees. There is a fundamental disconnect between the justification of stack ranking and the actuality of stack ranking. In a sufficiently large population of employees you get some duds - that's a statistical certainty. The giant leap and non sequitor is that relatively ranking will expose said duds better than measuring against a consistent, non-relative bar. Where I work right now we've had the displeasure of having hired some duds. Very few mind you, but in all cases they were let go soon after it became apparent they were duds and could not be reasonably improved. All of this was done without the need for stack ranking, and (thankfully) outside the scope of some annual remove. If you've hired someone who's actively detracting from your company, why in the frell are you waiting a whole year to remove them?!

by netcan 13y ago

potatolicious 13y ago

> "Out of 15 mains, 2-3 are probably stars that people come specifically to eat. 10 are OK. 2-3 suck, they make people not come back." Then fire them. It's also important to note that the 2-3 who suck suck in relation to a consistent standard, not in relation to the other employees. There is a fundamental disconnect between the justification of stack ranking and the actuality of stack ranking. In a sufficiently large population of employees you get some duds - that's a statistical certainty. The giant leap and non sequitor is that relatively ranking will expose said duds better than measuring against a consistent, non-relative bar. Where I work right now we've had the displeasure of having hired some duds. Very few mind you, but in all cases they were let go soon after it became apparent they were duds and could not be reasonably improved. All of this was done without the need for stack ranking, and (thankfully) outside the scope of some annual remove. If you've hired someone who's actively detracting from your company, why in the frell are you waiting a whole year to remove them?!