91–100 of 159 posts
I wasn't aware that US companies ranked employees and used rankings when purging the workforce (when I think about it it's a pretty obvious idea). In countries with stronger labour laws "underperformance" basically isn't a reason to fire someone. The employer is responsible for the employees performance (training etc.). This can be frustrating in the software business when just a few really poor performers can really…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
360 isn't perfect but it's better than the alternative. You're basically saying that those who worked daily in close interaction with the 10x developer and had to work with the code that developer produced, had lower regard for his technical ability than a manager who presumably is further removed? You can't ignore the social aspect. A team with social frictions isn't going to work as well as a team that enjoys worki…
Yes, I know what a 360 is, I've participated in them. In the situations I indicated I was also a developer on the team so I knew how productive and skilled the 10x prickly developer was. His peers ranked him high on technical skills but only as high as more amicable and lessor skilled peers. I'm not saying I ignored the social aspect, in fact that is why I called him "prickly". I'm just saying that, while his teamwor…
I swiped the Roman Evaluation Method from Luke Hohmann. During interviews, a No from one is a No from all. Self selecting teams is one of those agile advices.
If your prickly superstar was chosen collectively, he would have been given a lot of latitude. Eyes wide open kinda thing.
The only sticky interpersonal problems I've had is when some higher ranking genius assigns people to my teams, mostly unwanted and unwelcome.
And sometimes just plan bad soup. People good individually, bad together. Like when the boss assigned an outspoken Lebonese and an outspoken Israeli to my team. They got along as well as peanut butter and lug nuts.
Curious - what's the origin of stack ranking? Was there any science (psychology/sociology) behind it?
In terms of hard science, unfortunately blind randomized controlled trials are impossible, so it's not possible to definitively isolate causal relationships and confounding factors. "It seemed to work for GE in the 1980s" is the best that's on offer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Especially interesting considering the author of that article works at Microsoft
Yeah - as a manager, he probably knew about the changes a day earlier and hence decided a pen a post criticising other companies' ranking systems.
Bill Gates improved the world!
Now that they get rid of it, I wonder if they're going to run into problems on the other extreme... - Difficulty knowing who the best employees are. - Employees surprised by layoffs. "I thought I was doing well." - Managers slacking on giving constructive feedback. Performance management is such a tough subject. Both extremes (ruthless stacking, and no-curve) have issues and I don't know a better solution.
The risk going forward is that without being forced to a distribution, wishy-washy managers will trend towards the middle. High achievers will be under-compensated, and under-achievers will be overcompensated. The budget hasn't changed, so the same pool of money has to be divided among the same set of people, managers now have more freedom as to how.
We will continue to invest in a generous rewards budget, but there will no longer be a pre-determined targeted distribution. Managers and leaders will have flexibility to allocate rewards in the manner that best reflects the performance of their teams and individuals, as long as they stay within their compensation budget. Is this not in effect the same as a curve? Giving higher bonuses to one person means giving lowe…
Yes, but there is no forced curve fit. A healthy organization will always "manage out" people who are not fit for the job. At Microsoft, folks are given the hint early enough that they can explore other internal options before leaving the company entirely. Though, to be honest, if someone just can't cut it, they will leave the company.
One major thing I learned from 360 reviews is how bad developers are at judging each other or their manager. I've had employees on probation for lack of productivity judged as excellent by their peers because of their ability to socialize their "abilities". I had the best developer on my team (a 10x developer if ever there was one) get slammed on technical ability rankings because of his prickly personality. My VP an…
I once had a similar experience - in an interview situation. (I can be likeable in person, just not in comments...) The guy was attributing statements to me, from the conversation we were having in that moment, that i had never said. He would even say "what you said, or what you were going to say..." I found it extremely bizarre. I am a pretty precise person, and I wanted to correct him but i realized it is pointless…
Actually, the key to life is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you've got it made.
But, I think that leadership/true emotional control means that, even if someone is treating you wrongly or criticizing you, you can dissect the behavior, and then appeal to reason.
For example, I appreciate, and even invite, ruthless criticism ("go ahead and insult me if necessary") when getting feedback (on my code, performance, etc.)
The importance of having friends who can say, "you're an idiot - you don't understand X, Y, Z" is high.
Sometimes I dislike when, at previous jobs, I've had to mask the truth simply to avoid hurting someone's feelings. Because, if you hurt someone's feelings, that person will close up to you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
360 isn't perfect but it's better than the alternative. You're basically saying that those who worked daily in close interaction with the 10x developer and had to work with the code that developer produced, had lower regard for his technical ability than a manager who presumably is further removed? You can't ignore the social aspect. A team with social frictions isn't going to work as well as a team that enjoys worki…
Yes, I know what a 360 is, I've participated in them. In the situations I indicated I was also a developer on the team so I knew how productive and skilled the 10x prickly developer was. His peers ranked him high on technical skills but only as high as more amicable and lessor skilled peers. I'm not saying I ignored the social aspect, in fact that is why I called him "prickly". I'm just saying that, while his teamwor…
How? What makes you so sure you weren't biased?