Timeline for How do I ensure fair performance ratings in the stack ranking system?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 25, 2023 at 17:56 | comment | added | Edwin Buck | @mxyzplk Your first comment struck a chord in me. Baiscally, stacked ranking implies the team cannot be great. If it every approaches the 100% a company wants, you have to cull the quality and replace it with the average (every employee you hire is statistically average, they become good as they learn the job). This makes as much (non-)sense as firing the top performer, which would make more sense as all employees now spend more time becoming good, which was promoted in the 90's (see fire your irreplaceable people). | |
| Sep 28, 2016 at 21:35 | comment | added | bethlakshmi | And what would you call "challenge"? I'm all for trying to fix the world - but in a large company (especially one that is faceless enough to think stack ranking is a good idea) - you're basically screaming into the wind. If you've got a viable way to challenge the status quo for a universal HR practice in a 10,000+ person company, please comment, because I honestly don't know how usefully suggest such a way of challenging. | |
| Sep 14, 2016 at 22:27 | comment | added | code_dredd | @bethlakshmi, But I think failing to challenge (implicit) flawed assumptions (e.g. That there is a way to be "fair" within the system) sort of undermines things. | |
| Sep 12, 2016 at 20:55 | comment | added | bethlakshmi | I'm not making a judgement on the process here - the answer is taken from the standpoint that the process is non-negotiable, given the context of the question. | |
| Sep 9, 2016 at 22:06 | comment | added | code_dredd | I think an issue here is that even if the culture is good and exemplary, the process itself undermines everything. While there're several good points, I think it still implicitly assumes that the process can somehow be salvaged, which I don't think is the case. | |
| Sep 3, 2016 at 20:14 | history | bounty ended | mcknz | ||
| Aug 31, 2016 at 18:54 | comment | added | Gaius | Since the 10% who voluntarily leave in a stack ranking regime are overwhelmingly likely to be your best performers, if you give them poor ratings it will come back and bite you one day, if any of them end up working for a customer of yours and gets wind that you stitched them up. | |
| Aug 30, 2016 at 20:29 | comment | added | mxyzplk | The fact that we have to debate which outcome is the lesser evil reveals why this whole scheme is terrible in the first place. | |
| Aug 30, 2016 at 19:28 | comment | added | bethlakshmi | But the alternative is worse - keeping around the duds so you have some horrible employees to discard in stack ranking evolves towards the "is your company slimy?" area. | |
| Aug 27, 2016 at 16:06 | comment | added | mxyzplk | The problem with B is that it's a chicken and the egg problem - if they're not willing to bend then you got rid of the bad one before the stack ranking and now that process demands its sacrifice, and you only have a good worker to give it. | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 20:29 | history | answered | bethlakshmi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |