3 ms·

So, the obvious pathologies of the Microsoft stack ranking model aside, what are the reasons that a company will want to do this? The main reasons I can think

So, the obvious pathologies of the Microsoft stack ranking model aside, what are the reasons that a company will want to do this? The main reasons I can think of has to do with the dangers of getting comfortable in a large company. It's very easy for a lazy manager to just hand out "A"s to everyone on the team and just cruise along. Slackers are poisonous, but painful to deal with for a conflict-shy, comfortable manager. Actually being forced to think critically about which of your employees are the top performance, and which aren't (and it's a mathematical fact that they're not going to be the same) is a useful tool to keep such a manager on his toes. Another effect is simply to encourage a certain rate of churn in all teams, to get some fresh blood flowing through the system. Stack-ranking directly forces the manager to use his human capacity for critical thinking to evaluate his employees, and in such is a useful distraction from that even more disastrous evaluation method: Objective metrics (hours worked, lines of code committed, bugs closed, sales numbers etc).

etler 13y ago
I think managers are inherently in a bad place to review the performance of individuals in the team below them. They're primarily affected by the mean performance of the team, so if one guy is slacking off and the rest of the team needs to pick up the slack, the manager might not notice. I think peer reviews will be more honest. If a peer is doing next to nothing, or providing little to the team while everyone else is working like crazy, you're in a much better position to see that.
- boomzilla 13y ago
  I think it is a lot more complicated that just that. The root cause here is there is no easy way to quantify one's contribution to the company (or even a team) in software development. Some other professions are easier to evaluate, e.g. stock traders have their own P/L, lawyers/doctors have their own customer billings, etc. Note that I said "easier", but not necessarily bullet proof, because it still encourages people to optimize for short term goals.
  - etler 13y ago
    That's definitely the root cause. I'm not saying peer review is the solution, just that if managerial review is the alternative, I think peer review is better.
waterlesscloud 13y ago
So a lack of ability of managers to actually manage then. Which is a flaw in the people responsible for those managers to train and to bring them along properly. If we follow that chain to its conclusion...
HelloMcFly 13y ago
Forced Distribution Rating Systems (commonly referred to, incorrectly, as Stack Ranking Models) are intended first and foremost to identify the top performers and keep moving them up the company. Secondarily, it helps "trim the fat". People focus most on the latter, but the main draw is the former. It also is meant as a way to keep raters accountable for the performance management process and avoid rating errors, most obviously the leniency bias but also the halo bias. Finally, in some organizations it's just a convenient way to distribute rewards (comp, promotions). While this is a highlight of it in any application, the focus on that as the primary benefit is less than ideal. But convenience is its own reward for many. This concept is intended for use at the more senior levels in the company and typically not meant to be done within teams/groups/divisions, but rather across teams/groups/divisions. The whole system is designed around creating a workforce with maximum potential, if not maximum performance. There are some simulation studies that have borne this out, but I'm wary of trusting the validity of simulated models in complex systems and social phenomenon. While evidence suggests neither raters or ratees react well to the system, actual evidence of behavior (e.g., attrition) and performance generally don't show the expected negative outcomes. It's thought level of interdependence in one's role would be positively associated with poor performance, but I don't know of any evidence about this either way. It's also thought that the system works best in a culture that sends similar signals, like high-performance consulting cultures. Again, I know of no data about this. Here is a decent, if somewhat old, PDF that is classic forced distribution reading. I don't think it's perfect, but it's a good starting spot: http://www.groteconsulting.com/resources/pdfs/Across_the_Board-Forced_Ranking-Behind_the_Scenes.pdf http://www.groteconsulting.com/resources/pdfs/Across_the_Boa... I have more research about this handy on my work desk I can post tomorrow if anyone is interested.

etler 13y ago

I think managers are inherently in a bad place to review the performance of individuals in the team below them. They're primarily affected by the mean performance of the team, so if one guy is slacking off and the rest of the team needs to pick up the slack, the manager might not notice. I think peer reviews will be more honest. If a peer is doing next to nothing, or providing little to the team while everyone else is working like crazy, you're in a much better position to see that.

boomzilla 13y ago
I think it is a lot more complicated that just that. The root cause here is there is no easy way to quantify one's contribution to the company (or even a team) in software development. Some other professions are easier to evaluate, e.g. stock traders have their own P/L, lawyers/doctors have their own customer billings, etc. Note that I said "easier", but not necessarily bullet proof, because it still encourages people to optimize for short term goals.
- etler 13y ago
  That's definitely the root cause. I'm not saying peer review is the solution, just that if managerial review is the alternative, I think peer review is better.

waterlesscloud 13y ago

So a lack of ability of managers to actually manage then. Which is a flaw in the people responsible for those managers to train and to bring them along properly. If we follow that chain to its conclusion...

HelloMcFly 13y ago

Forced Distribution Rating Systems (commonly referred to, incorrectly, as Stack Ranking Models) are intended first and foremost to identify the top performers and keep moving them up the company. Secondarily, it helps "trim the fat". People focus most on the latter, but the main draw is the former. It also is meant as a way to keep raters accountable for the performance management process and avoid rating errors, most obviously the leniency bias but also the halo bias. Finally, in some organizations it's just a convenient way to distribute rewards (comp, promotions). While this is a highlight of it in any application, the focus on that as the primary benefit is less than ideal. But convenience is its own reward for many. This concept is intended for use at the more senior levels in the company and typically not meant to be done within teams/groups/divisions, but rather across teams/groups/divisions. The whole system is designed around creating a workforce with maximum potential, if not maximum performance. There are some simulation studies that have borne this out, but I'm wary of trusting the validity of simulated models in complex systems and social phenomenon. While evidence suggests neither raters or ratees react well to the system, actual evidence of behavior (e.g., attrition) and performance generally don't show the expected negative outcomes. It's thought level of interdependence in one's role would be positively associated with poor performance, but I don't know of any evidence about this either way. It's also thought that the system works best in a culture that sends similar signals, like high-performance consulting cultures. Again, I know of no data about this. Here is a decent, if somewhat old, PDF that is classic forced distribution reading. I don't think it's perfect, but it's a good starting spot: http://www.groteconsulting.com/resources/pdfs/Across_the_Board-Forced_Ranking-Behind_the_Scenes.pdf http://www.groteconsulting.com/resources/pdfs/Across_the_Boa... I have more research about this handy on my work desk I can post tomorrow if anyone is interested.