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

Microsoft does away with stack ranking

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 159 posts

Re: Microsoft does away with stack ranking

#101

Post by jacques_chester »

ethomson wrote: post #82
mhurron wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When one person succeeds we all succeed breaks down when you are pushed to succeed at the expense of everyone else. You are supposed to be working for the good of the whole, not just yourself. Cooperation and team work are also meritorious, but they are not rewarded or encouraged in this type of merit-based system.

I agree with you, but this doesn't address the clever and glib but ultimately content-free argument above. You can stack rank on any criteria - including cooperation and team work.

You're handwaving away the problem of measuring intangibles.

Re: Microsoft does away with stack ranking

#102

Post by overgryphon »

meowface wrote: post #73
jredwards wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likability is underrated. Someone who is easy to work with, improves workplace morale, and makes other developers feel comfortable at work is a valuable asset. Certainly, it shouldn't be a substitute for technical ability, but it can be a very significant complimentary attribute.

The problem is when likability affects how someone reviews your technical abilities. It should be a separate category, but most people would have significant trouble disassociating the two; more so if you're friends with a coworker.

Is it so important that the individual components of a person's performance be evaluated individually? What about someone with exceptional technical abilities who uses those skills to ensure that blame for potential failure is always assigned to other people, rather than focus those impressive skills on the success of the overall project? Is it so important that person receive recognition for their technical skills?

If someone's social behavior jeopardizes the success of projects they work on, then perhaps it doesn't matter how technically competent they are.

Re: Microsoft does away with stack ranking

#103

Post by xymostech »

overgryphon wrote: post #102
meowface wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is when likability affects how someone reviews your technical abilities. It should be a separate category, but most people would have significant trouble disassociating the two; more so if you're friends with a coworker.

Is it so important that the individual components of a person's performance be evaluated individually? What about someone with exceptional technical abilities who uses those skills to ensure that blame for potential failure is always assigned to other people, rather than focus those impressive skills on the success of the overall project? Is it so important that person receive recognition for their technical skills?…

The answer to your question is probably "no". However, most of the discussion was in reference to the stack ranking at Microsoft, where people's pay was being determined by how well they were ranked by their peers. If you were generally likable, people might also say that your coding skills were better than they really were. So, I think that you're right, and it's a good reason why the stack system didn't work very well.

Re: Microsoft does away with stack ranking

#105

Post by Iftheshoefits »

Ensorceled wrote: post #81
tensor wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>People who think judging performance is hard have a broken development methodology or no technical chops. And this is exactly why I asked the question. Here you have judged me, since I said judging performance was hard, on both my development methodology and technical chops. Yet you know nothing about me at all. The problem of evaluation is an important one, and one I'm always interested in reading more on. Unfortun…

In fairness, you judged me first. I've never had a problem judging performance when I was doing my job right. Any time I've been unsure it's because I was either not managing the team properly or did not have enough technical knowledge to evaluate the estimates and claims (e.g. this took longer because of X and Y). I know you can manage performance in a way that allows evaluation even if you don't have the technical…

Most managers are unable to adjust for their own biases, though.

I'm especially skeptical of managers who evaluate themselves as having above average technical ability after they have asserted how poorly most people evaluate their peers. The necessary conclusion of such an assertion is that people therefore haven't a rational basis on which to judge their own skills relative to others.

Re: Microsoft does away with stack ranking

#106

Post by w0rd-driven »

SubuSS wrote: post #50
potatolicious wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assessing performance post-hoc doesn't necessarily entail discretionary bonuses. If I am not performing to expectations, fire me or renegotiate my salary. There are a great many ways to tune my compensation to my actual determined worth. A discretionary bonus in this case is simply "you should take a below-market salary until we're convinced you're the real deal, and then maybe you will get the salary difference back…

It depends on the numbers involved too. Many companies give you a market rate and a bonus (sign on / stock RSU/ cash bonus etc) on top of it to incentivize extra work / ownership. My case: my base salary is pretty competitive considering the market/location. I also get a stock award on top of that based on my future potential / current work etc. For me, the stock component has been a reasonable contributor to the fin…

This is definitely how it should be, the rule not the exception. It tends to seem like the exception in the places I've been exposed to. Its likely my choice centered around this area of the Atlanta suburbs that reinforces my perception.

Re: Microsoft does away with stack ranking

#107

Post by Ensorceled »

ethomson wrote: post #74
Ensorceled wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the main problem with stack ranking is that you convince your employees that their personal competitors are their teammates and not actual business competitors. Any time the best way for me to get ahead is by using "The Art of War" on my peers you have set up your organization for eventual failure.

Of course we're competing. That's the whole point of a merit-based bonus system. What's your counterargument?

It should not be a zero sum game. I attempt to pay my team based upon what they are worth to the company; not how they rank compared to their co-workers. You should be able to have an entire team of #1 developers ...

Re: Microsoft does away with stack ranking

#108

Post by brosco45 »

robododo wrote: post #8
Shenglong wrote: post #7

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.

That's not how it works, the best leaves, the political ones stays. Microsoft is so toxic now it's hard to imaging them saving themselves anymore.

Maybe if they fire all middle and upper management.

Re: Microsoft does away with stack ranking

#109

Post by JSZZHlmumeUE »

Ensorceled wrote: post #67
tensor wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think that your judgements are any better than theirs? How do you judge performance? Do you look at code? Or do you simply go by how many feature check boxes they get through in a given time frame? edit: and I don't ask this to be insulting, but judging performance is a very difficult task and I've never seen a reliable methodology for doing it. Thus, I'm naturally extremely skeptical when someone clai…

I'm usually one of the strongest developers on my team, even when I'm managing. It's one of my strengths and why I stay with small companies. It also means I'm qualified to judge the technical skills of my developers, I know how long it should take. People who think judging performance is hard have a broken development methodology or no technical chops. That's also why I included the comment on my own rankings; I hav…

People who think judging performance is hard have a broken development methodology or no technical chops.

I suggest you reflect on this. It seems to me that you've convinced yourself that you are good at certain things but there isn't really any evidence supporting your beliefs.

When I was younger, I actually used to think like you - that perf evaluation is easy and a good engineer (e.g. me) would be able to evaluate others easily. Over time, I've realized this is an incredibly complex and nuanced issue because everyone's strengths and weaknesses are so very multifaceted. I am more or less convinced that people who think they have all the right answers simply have a lot of blindspots.

Re: Microsoft does away with stack ranking

#110

Post by moca »

This is absolutely great for Microsoft and its employees. Grade by curve creates internal friction that is harmful to the team. I am a manager in a large company. I always suggested to grade by performance against job level. There is written requirement for each job level, it is relatively easy to measure against the written description by both managers and peers. Everyone has incentive to get salary raise, bigger bonus, promotion. There is no need to use internal competition to add more pressure.

On the other hand, the lower 5% people only cost about 2% of companies spending. It is not even worth to worry about it. You need to interview equivalent to 50% of employee count to replace that 5%, plus whole set of HR bandwidth to handle it. Microsoft has been losing a lot of value to fire lower 5% while keep a lower 5% CEO at the top for so many years.

Post reply on HN