Timeline for How do I ensure fair performance ratings in the stack ranking system?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
49 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 27, 2023 at 23:03 | comment | added | plagiarisedwords | Stack ranking systems fall over because they are always implemented at the team / department level, (not practical doing it at a company level). This assumes each team performs at the same level and the bell curve applies within the team. This is obviously wrong. A professional footballer who is at the bottom of a great team would get ranked worse than me playing at an amatuer level but best on my team. | |
| Jan 15, 2019 at 3:24 | comment | added | EvilSnack | If you really have zero tolerance for politics, you are going to tell your superiors to stick their Stack Ranking System where the sun doesn't shine. | |
| Oct 25, 2017 at 14:24 | answer | added | Xander | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 8, 2016 at 13:18 | comment | added | Lightness Races in Orbit | My instinct was to "correct" the title from "stack" to "Stack Overflow" — had no idea Stack Ranking existed ^_^ | |
| Sep 29, 2016 at 14:27 | comment | added | Stephan Bijzitter | You supervise 5 people, who each supervise 6 people. To me, that sounds like 35 people in total; not 30. | |
| Sep 29, 2016 at 6:21 | comment | added | Nelson | Wow, did you read the wiki page you linked? The process is horrible... | |
| Sep 8, 2016 at 20:53 | answer | added | Eric Lippert | timeline score: 2 | |
| S Sep 7, 2016 at 13:54 | history | suggested | BCdotWEB | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
displaying list as an actual list
|
| Sep 7, 2016 at 13:11 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Sep 7, 2016 at 13:54 | |||||
| S Sep 3, 2016 at 20:14 | history | bounty ended | mcknz | ||
| S Sep 3, 2016 at 20:14 | history | notice removed | mcknz | ||
| Sep 3, 2016 at 17:30 | answer | added | keshlam | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 2, 2016 at 21:05 | comment | added | user8365 | Annual reviews are such a waste that the only way to make them more effective is to do them every two years or longer. | |
| Sep 2, 2016 at 16:25 | comment | added | code_dredd | Turned my previous comment into a more elaborate response. | |
| Sep 2, 2016 at 16:05 | answer | added | code_dredd | timeline score: 22 | |
| Sep 2, 2016 at 5:39 | comment | added | Simon O'Doherty | The stack system is so open to abuse. You can get to the top by making other others you are stacked against fail. So it becomes less about working together. | |
| Sep 1, 2016 at 21:04 | answer | added | Steve Mangiameli | timeline score: 39 | |
| Aug 31, 2016 at 18:51 | comment | added | Gaius | You cannot, it's that simple. Stack ranking was devised as a means to justify layoffs and keep workers divided. Also I question how "great" a manager you are if one of your evaluation criteria is unpaid overtime. | |
| Aug 31, 2016 at 17:36 | answer | added | A. McDaniel | timeline score: 5 | |
| Aug 31, 2016 at 16:44 | answer | added | ya23 | timeline score: 6 | |
| Aug 31, 2016 at 15:04 | answer | added | KenB | timeline score: 3 | |
| Aug 27, 2016 at 22:37 | comment | added | Simon B | There's a good article on Microsoft at Vanity Fair vanityfair.com/news/business/2012/08/… If you don't want to read the whole lot, scroll down to "The bell curve". | |
| S Aug 27, 2016 at 20:01 | history | bounty started | mcknz | ||
| S Aug 27, 2016 at 20:01 | history | notice added | mcknz | Draw attention | |
| Aug 27, 2016 at 16:02 | comment | added | gnasher729 | "Stack ranking" is said to have been extremely damaging just about everything at Microsoft. It's a system that forces employees to focus on looking better than their colleagues, no matter how much backstabbing is needed, and stopping colleagues from doing what is good for the company is usually a lot easier if you are unscrupulous than doing something good for the company yourself. And just as effective with stack ranking. | |
| Aug 27, 2016 at 7:51 | comment | added | Autistic | I suppose that the intention of stack ranking is to improve average staff quality .The people who dreamed this up had the best intentions .If you put this in a place that does not have it you might find that lots of people want to leave .Generally the better people will find work faster so you may actually reduce staff quality . | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 20:29 | answer | added | bethlakshmi | timeline score: 28 | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 19:52 | comment | added | The Wandering Dev Manager | Having been in a similar position you have to understand you will likely be "grandfathered" on this, i.e. your scores/results will pass up the chain to someone levels higher, who will overrule your scores to fit their budget. Nothing says "welcome to management" quite like having take someone you scored as "outstanding" and had to take them through their "needs improvement" final score. | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 16:54 | history | rollback | IDrinkandIKnowThings |
Rollback to Revision 4
|
|
| Aug 26, 2016 at 16:09 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackWorkplace/status/769205024069152768 | ||
| Aug 26, 2016 at 14:29 | comment | added | HLGEM | I speak from 40 years of experience. Objective measure do not work. You end up measuring what is easy to measure not what is the most effective performance. You end up giving people who do simple tasks the same weight as people who do complex tasks. How do you measure objectively the value of each coding task for instance. Sure it is easy to meet deadlines and have no bugs when all you do is write simple CRUD SQL. But someone dealing in teh problems nobody else can solve? | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 14:19 | history | reopened |
Joe Strazzere Nobody nvoigt♦ IDrinkandIKnowThings Thomas Owens |
||
| Aug 26, 2016 at 14:18 | history | edited | void_pointer | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 303 characters in body
|
| Aug 26, 2016 at 11:20 | comment | added | void_pointer | @HLGEM: I'm not sure how anyone can get away with gaming the system, if the objective measures had been created with appropriate weightage to prevent this from happening. Yes you definitely can identify best employees quickly, but what if there are pools of go-getters?In that case, some objectivity is needed, if only to let the Second-Place Finishers know where they lost out. Sure, numbers are not everything but they certainly can add value to the analysis. | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 6:32 | history | edited | void_pointer | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Aug 26, 2016 at 6:29 | comment | added | void_pointer | About the paycheck question, immediately under me are 5 leads who are among the best out of the 30. It could very likely happen that I need to cherry-pick 1 out of these 5 and he might get the goodies(promo, big raise, etc) while the other 4 who touch-base with me practically every day might not. This could get very messy especially if the participants each have a different niche - one is a people magician, one is a technical wiz who closes problems rapidly, one works great with cross-functional teams, etc. Senior management works with HR on the budget and they both decide the hike %ges. | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 6:17 | comment | added | void_pointer | @Joe: Appreciate your interest in this issue. Since we are an engineering team, we absolutely expect employees throwing ideas to actually implement them and produce something tangible like 'hours saved by Idea N' and so on. | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 6:06 | history | edited | void_pointer | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Aug 26, 2016 at 2:53 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Aug 26, 2016 at 11:14 | |||||
| Aug 25, 2016 at 21:52 | comment | added | Monica Cellio | Meta discussion: meta.workplace.stackexchange.com/q/3888/325 | |
| Aug 25, 2016 at 21:20 | comment | added | HLGEM | I think inherently that using subjective measures is far more likely to put the cream of the crop on the top. If you are doing your job as a manager and your subordinate managers are doing their jobs as managers, you will know who your most reliable and best employees are long before the time to do ratings. Any time we have been stuck with Objective measures, the mediocre have ended up on top because it is easy to game those kinds of measures and the best guys are often too busy getting the work done to do so. | |
| Aug 25, 2016 at 20:45 | history | closed |
Philip Kendall Old_Lamplighter gnat alroc paparazzo |
Opinion-based | |
| Aug 25, 2016 at 20:23 | history | edited | IDrinkandIKnowThings | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 62 characters in body
|
| Aug 25, 2016 at 17:22 | comment | added | HireThisMarine | To be quite frank, you need to make friends with your contemporaries that are more comfortable with the system, or even came up through it. | |
| Aug 25, 2016 at 17:18 | review | Close votes | |||
| Aug 25, 2016 at 20:48 | |||||
| Aug 25, 2016 at 16:51 | comment | added | pay | Seems like you should be pushing for a different performance review methodology. I can't imagine many positive effects from the one you're talking about. | |
| Aug 25, 2016 at 16:27 | comment | added | DLS3141 | Use SMART performance objectives. That is, they should be Specific Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Timely. and they should not be the same for each person. | |
| Aug 25, 2016 at 15:37 | review | First posts | |||
| Aug 25, 2016 at 15:40 | |||||
| Aug 25, 2016 at 15:33 | history | asked | void_pointer | CC BY-SA 3.0 |