The issue I have with ranking/review systems is that, more often than not, they become self-fulfilling prophecies. A negative mark will change the way a manage

The issue I have with ranking/review systems is that, more often than not, they become self-fulfilling prophecies. A negative mark will change the way a manager perceives an employee. The employee's positive contributions will suddenly be subject to greater scrutiny, and slip-ups will serve only to reinforce the manager's confirmation bias. Similarly, an employee's confidence and sense of self-worth can be shattered by a negative review. It's suddenly very easy to feel like no matter how hard you work you won't be valued by your managers and peers. All of this leads to a negative spiral of career-choking doom. I've seen it happen to friends and coworkers, and it's very sad to watch. If you're going to evaluate your employees based on their relative performance, it's critical that they have the freedom to change their situation, without repercussion. Allow them to change teams or roles freely, until they find a role that really amplifies their individual strengths. (After all, you hired them for some reason, right?) I've seen companies make the mistake preventing an employee from changing teams until they demonstrate they can improve their performance. Of course they can improve their performance, but only if you let them move to a better role! Instead of treating poor-performing employees like cogs that simply need to spin faster, I wish more companies recognized how varied and diverse their employees are, and how a productive workforce needs to be cultivated and maintained, not bought and hired.