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

131–140 of 159 posts

Re: Microsoft does away with stack ranking

#131

Post by marshray »

michaelt wrote: post #89
ethomson wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Generating value for your employer is not a zero-sum game. If I make the company an extra $x and the company rewards me with a bonus of $0.1x that money doesn't have to come from the guy next to me, it comes from the extra $x I brought into the company. The idea that "there's a fixed budget for raises" or "that money goes into a different pot" is simply a way of refusing while transferring blame to an inanimate objec…

Even if the reality is that there is a fixed budget for raises that needs to be awarded fairly, it doesn't logically imply there should be a fixed number of 'excellent' and 'awful' employee reviews to be handed out.

Re: Microsoft does away with stack ranking

#132

Post by marshray »

ironchief wrote: post #125

By killing stack ranking, MSFT has taken low hanging PR fruit from the next CEO

It may also take some of the pressure off of high-level people who previously had their rankings approved by Ballmer. (I don't have anyone specific in mind. Yes seriously.)

Re: Microsoft does away with stack ranking

#133

Post by marshray »

nness wrote: post #90
mbesto wrote: post #86

Curious - what's the origin of stack ranking? Was there any science (psychology/sociology) behind it?

I'm not sure how it was developed, but its popularity is credited to Jack Welch, who introduced it to General Electric in 1980. In doing so, GE experienced a "5-fold increase in revenue": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitality_curve

In 1980 President Reagan was elected. In addition to many technologies (e.g., LSI ICs) coming online, the amount of taxpayer debt that the US government funneled into our industrial sector over the next few years was simply staggering.

One should look at where this revenue was coming from and compare GE to other companies in the sector (i.e., other makers of nuclear reactors and jet engines) during this time before drawing conclusions about personnel management theories (of all things).

Re: Microsoft does away with stack ranking

#134

Post by ekianjo »

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.

You can't dissociate parts of an individual just like you can't say that this part of the clock is so so but the alarm bell is great. What counts is the overall, if I may say holistic proposition of what you are evaluating. Does the person fit well in the team? Are they bringing value in one way or another ? It shouldn't be that important to evaluate the specific skills of a said person, but at least recognize what they achieved (or missed) and try to understand why, and then make a picture out of that. Likability cannot make up for actual results (or lack of), or at least not very long.

Re: Microsoft does away with stack ranking

#135

Post by jmspring »

ethomson wrote: post #27
RandallBrown wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't seen much backstabbing either, but what I have seen is plenty of people acting way differently than they would if the stack ranking curve doesn't exist. People are constantly doing stuff to make them "visible" instead of doing what is best for the project. How many features do people fight nail and tooth for, that should be cut, just because if they aren't in the product they won't have anything to show for…

The visibility thing is an excellent point: I've been told before that I need to work on more visible projects. But when I work on very visible projects I get feedback like "provide more leadership". This reminds me very much of the article the other day, "You're only getting the nice feedback": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6712289

The intersection of requirements for visibility and prominent project get even more interesting when attempting to cross bands.

Re: Microsoft does away with stack ranking

#136

Post by Aloha »

mynameishere wrote: post #118
300bps wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Protip to all non-sociopaths: You can't fake sincerity. Trying will backfire in the long term. You seem to know a lot about psychology. What do you call someone who doesn't recognize jokes?

What do you call someone who posts ancient, moldy quotes?

How old are you guys, like 8?

Re: Microsoft does away with stack ranking

#137

Post by meowface »

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?…

I understand your point, and I agree that cooperation, friendliness, humility, etc. are all extremely important skills in any engineer or developer, but I think there is some value in looking at the two things distinctly (technical and social).

As a counterexample to yours, what if someone is very friendly, witty, and amicable, but is severely lacking in technical skills? Perhas they are not even remotely pulling their weight in projects, resulting in friendly coworkers essentially doing their work for them and covering for them? In such a case you'll want to know that their technical skills are below what they should be.

Re: Microsoft does away with stack ranking

#138

Post by joeldidit »

I'm glad this happened. It was a completely necessary move. I hope it's not just a surface change while they twist things to keep it all going. Backstabbing and not collaborating to ensure you're not the one at the bottom of the curve is no way to work. And having to worry about and deal with backstabbers everyday quickly leads to a toxic work environment. Good riddance.

Re: Microsoft does away with stack ranking

#140

Post by FrojoS »

ethomson wrote: post #5

This was seemingly inevitable whether this is actually useful or not. Microsoft has been getting increasing heat about our stack ranking system, both from employees and from external people. But I don't think stack ranking is our problem. I think our problem is that we value this notion of the brilliant and excellent individual contributor instead of valuing employees that value teamwork and team problem solving. I s…

Thanks for sharing.

It honestly surprises me that MS gets away with having such poor working conditions and team work [1]. I guess the end of stack ranking shows that things are changing at least.

I know lots of people in IT, but somehow no one who works at MS [2]. Its seen as uncool or worse unmoral in my circles [3]. And these people, including me, didn't even know how bad the working conditions are at MS! I always thought of MS to be like one of those 'defense' companies [4]. You either don't really want to work there, because even if the technical challenge and the available resources are great, you don't agree with their mission or you fear that your friends and peers would look down on you. But to make up for that, they have really good work conditions [5]. Thats at least what I hear from people who worked on military projects at Raytheon, Boeing and EADS.

Hope you don't take this comparison as an insult. I think MS makes great things! OneNote, VisualStudio, Kinect, Age of Empires are all great products. And personally, I would have much, much (!!!) less reservations against working for them, than a so called defense company [6].

--- [1] And, I can't help myself pointing out, that MS's version control system is called 'Team Foundation'. New speak?

[2] The exception is MS Research, which is awesome, but thats not really MS.

[3] Most of us were born in the 80's (and many including me in Germany) and grew up hating MS. Even if you wouldn't use computers on your own, everyone including parents and teachers would tell you how bad MS, their products and their business practice were.

[4] Other examples are 'big pharma', tabaco, finances, esp. investment banking. I know people working in all of those industries. They all report excellent work conditions and compensations. Some are ok with the company actions it, some are proud to work there. But all of them look very self aware when they get asked "What do you work?" The counterexample are jobs like social work, medical care taking, NGOs, academic research and yes, usually engineering as well. Many people want to work their, either because they believe in it, or because it brings them social prestige. As a result the high demand allows for poorer working conditions and less pay.

[5] Salaries at MS are still very good, as far as I know.

[6] Though, DARPA projects are very attractive. I can't deny that.

Post reply on HN