24 ms·
The article states it plainly: the problem with the stack ranking system is that it's a zero-sum game. (BTW, I tend to read it as "stank raking" for some weird
by Florin_Andrei 13y ago
The article states it plainly: the problem with the stack ranking system is that it's a zero-sum game.
(BTW, I tend to read it as "stank raking" for some weird reason.)
- dragonwriter 13y ago> The article states it plainly: the problem with the stack ranking system is that it's a zero-sum game. Done properly, and used for the right purposes, that actually makes sense. Particularly, in the case of compensation, if overall raises for a group were set (possibly by stack ranking of groups with a supergroup where the overall level was set), and stack ranking was used to determine the distribution within the group.
- Florin_Andrei 13y agoThe thing is, you don't zero-sum it if your goal is to become or remain a leader of innovation and a paragon of creativity.
- dragonwriter 13y agoThat's an interesting conclusion, but I don't see the argument supporting it. Zero-sum rankings within each group, in nested groups, seem to make perfect sense for most purposes -- what's wrong to me would seem to be the assumptions like, e.g., that punitive measures need to be assigned to the bottom rank within groups every time, regardless of the overall performance of the group.