Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why are Amazon, Facebook and Yahoo copying Microsoft's stack ranking system?

25hoursaday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 168 posts

Re: Why are Amazon, Facebook and Yahoo copying Microsoft's stack ranking system?

#81

Post by eitally »

yajoe wrote: post #47
brown9-2 wrote: post #6

The evil, destructive, part of stack ranking is when you need to apply the 20%/70%/10% breakdowns to all teams equally, meaning that even a team of 5 people needs to have one and only one "exceeds expectation" person and one person who "needs improvement", regardless of overall team level. It's not clear from this writeup that Amazon and Facebook are applying curves at such a micro level.

Completely agree, and I didn't know this practice had spread so widely. While doing the HR-sanctioned stack ranking requires X > MIN_POP_SIZE, in practice each line manager (i.e. lead) provides a pre-sorted list up the chain for merge-sorting. That way the line managers minimize the number of arguments during the official org-wide stack ranking. Many managers have gotten good at balancing their teams with high and lo…

I think you're exactly right. The vast majority of enterprise software development is commodity work that can be done acceptably well by junior staff. The senior folks and leaders will bitch about it, but not to the point of getting themselves fired for insubordination.

Re: Why are Amazon, Facebook and Yahoo copying Microsoft's stack ranking system?

#82

Post by duaneb »

cwp wrote: post #75
duaneb wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any ranking system where an individual's outcome depends on their number of colleagues is bafflingly broken. From the perspective of the company, it's not as clear how this approach is broken. Assumably promotions, hirings, and firings should be based on the current needs of the company, not what's fair to the employees or some ideological vision. I'm pretty sure attempting to apply any one method for evaluating so…

The problem with stack ranking isn't that it's unfair to individual employees, it's that it inhibits cooperation. If "success" is defined as performing better than your peers, it creates an incentive to prevent your peers from performing well. If everybody is actively sabotaging each other's efforts, or even just not helping each other, that hurts the company's overall performance.

Sure, but it's not clear cooperation should be prioritized over e.g. loyalty. (I happen to think it is, but it's not at all an objective inference.)

Re: Why are Amazon, Facebook and Yahoo copying Microsoft's stack ranking system?

#83

Post by michaelochurch »

Why do these companies have Microsoft-style stack-ranking systems? Because many engineers are pussies who don't fight for themselves.

Imagine if that stack-ranking nonsense were done to a law firm. (Law firms have a very civilized way of managing people out into external promotions if they, after ~6 years, obviously aren't going to make partner. Google "Cravath model".) There'd be lawsuits galore. Attorneys would start legal process just to get embarrassing details (about said stack ranking, perhaps) into the public in discovery. Why? Because they (including the female ones) have balls.

Doctors and lawyers would never put up with MSFT-style stack-ranking. Bankers find clever ways to subvert and abuse it when it is imposed upon them.

But there are a lot of engineers who are just cowards, unwilling to stick up for themselves.

Example: in many companies, negative performance reviews are part of the transfer packet and impede mobility. Being (again) pussies who don't fight for themselves, many engineers just assume that's how things work. No, it's not. You can actually build a legal case on that alone. It's harassment (interference with job duties, here interpreted as using internal mobility opportunities) and already the start of a legal case-- if you get your shit together and start documenting. Use the right words and the bad review will go away.

Stack ranking isn't technically illegal, but if it renders immobile people who perform in good faith (i.e. don't flagrantly blow off job requirements) it does leave the company civilly liable for harassment charges-- interference with job duties. If software engineers collectively grew a pair, it would fall down within minutes.

Re: Why are Amazon, Facebook and Yahoo copying Microsoft's stack ranking system?

#84

Post by waterlesscloud »

mseebach wrote: post #33

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 mana…

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...

Re: Why are Amazon, Facebook and Yahoo copying Microsoft's stack ranking system?

#85

Post by boomzilla »

etler wrote: post #74
mseebach wrote: post #33

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 mana…

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 i…

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.

Re: Why are Amazon, Facebook and Yahoo copying Microsoft's stack ranking system?

#86

Post by kybernetikos »

progn wrote: post #78

Eh. I'm in Facebook bootcamp now. Between this article about the ranking system, a truly uninspiring (to me --- YMMV) choice of teams to work on, and the press Facebook has been getting lately, I'm seriously considering parting ways and going somewhere else. Nobody can beat Facebook's pay or food, but what good is it if I feel like I lack direction and purpose? How much would it damage my career to say I tried FB boo…

I can't speak for anyone else, but it depends a bit on what you do next. One or two solid jobs down the road, I doubt anyone will really care, but if you do it enough that it looks like you have made a habit of joining up and then not giving it a fair chance based on gossip from outside the company, then yes, that will count against you.

Re: Why are Amazon, Facebook and Yahoo copying Microsoft's stack ranking system?

#87

Post by calinet6 »

Here's a question to which most people experience revulsion, but must be thought of and answered honestly:

Why not give everyone the same bonus based on company performance? Make it collective good.

You'll probably think of reasons, like "good people should be rewarded," or "people who do things wrong need to have consequences," but you must realize the alternative is this vile demotivational anti-pattern with even worse consequences.

The right way is to align the company goal with the individual goal, and do it simply and clearly.

American companies need to understand and follow Deming's principles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming#Key_principle...), or we'll continue falling into the soul-sucking black hole we're already halfway into. He already knew all of this, every bit of what we're experiencing, and our objection to his ideas is nothing more than an ideological almost religious belief that the most effective way to motivate individuals is to rank, rate, measure, and reward them accordingly. In fact, those archaic methods of management only serve to demotivate and systemically destroy culture and productivity alike, and reduces the quality of whatever you produce, be it innovation or physical products.

We know this. Deming's ideas work. They are truth in writing, and knowledge in practice. He pulled Japan out of a post-war recession and made them legends of quality production for pete's sake. Why can't we learn?

Re: Why are Amazon, Facebook and Yahoo copying Microsoft's stack ranking system?

#88

Post by syllogism »

bowlofpetunias wrote: post #57
jellicle wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Managers have a bias to like and want to keep "their" employees, because they know them, because they are friends with them. Even if Steve is objectively a poor performer, you know him; you met his wife; you saw pictures of his kids. He's a nice guy. If you fire him, you either don't get a replacement (bad) or you have to interview 20 people to find a replacement (also bad). It's hard to hire - what if you choose poo…

You've just described not one, but two bad managers. Steve's manager, who doesn't have what it takes to make the hard decisions and is to lazy to do job interviews, and the manager of Steve's manager, who won't let him get a replacement if he fires Steve, but is perfectly willing to keep paying for Steve. Now you can defend Steve's manager because he's nice to Steve, but if I had a dime for every employee who's pisse…

Ah but when you're dealing with humans instead of machines, having _less_ power is often a strategic advantage!

Re: Why are Amazon, Facebook and Yahoo copying Microsoft's stack ranking system?

#89

Post by rdxm »

brown9-2 wrote: post #6

The evil, destructive, part of stack ranking is when you need to apply the 20%/70%/10% breakdowns to all teams equally, meaning that even a team of 5 people needs to have one and only one "exceeds expectation" person and one person who "needs improvement", regardless of overall team level. It's not clear from this writeup that Amazon and Facebook are applying curves at such a micro level.

too true. i'm being forced to do this to my team at another very large tech company. the large data-set curve approach is completely toxic in small teams that are destroying themselves to meet crazy goals.

Re: Why are Amazon, Facebook and Yahoo copying Microsoft's stack ranking system?

#90

Post by yuhong »

jellicle wrote: post #48
bowlofpetunias wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about approaching managers in the same way we always like companies to approach developers, i.e., hire good ones and empower them do their job in the best way they know how? Using a system that is enforced from the top down is a perfect way to guarantee you'll only get the kind of below mediocre managers we love to bitch about. All of these systems are based on the assumption that companies can't trust the people…

Managers have a bias to like and want to keep "their" employees, because they know them, because they are friends with them. Even if Steve is objectively a poor performer, you know him; you met his wife; you saw pictures of his kids. He's a nice guy. If you fire him, you either don't get a replacement (bad) or you have to interview 20 people to find a replacement (also bad). It's hard to hire - what if you choose poo…

I wonder if cutting teams instead of people would be a better idea.
Post reply on HN