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

151–159 of 159 posts

Re: Microsoft does away with stack ranking

#151

Post by SubuSS »

Ensorceled wrote: post #148
SnacksOnAPlane wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of thinking throws me into infinite loops. I think I'm not such a good developer, which makes me think that I must be a good developer because I recognize my limitations, which makes me think that I'm not such a good developer because I think I'm a good developer, and so on.

HN has a real problem with people who self identify as good programmers ... there is always a bunch of "no you're not" and "you only think you are" and "people who say they are good usually suck" type of responses. It's pretty weird reaction for a tech site where many good programmers hang out.

The problem is companies are looking for engineers while you are talking about this in terms of programmers. In most companies, it is about shipping and making a difference to the bottom line. It doesn't really matter if you are a good programmer if you are not getting things out of the door / ensuring future dev/maintenance will be pain free. For this programming is a tool, just like planning / estimation / design skills / being likable which helps with mentoring new developers etc. The % might differ, but the net evaluation has to be on the whole. Net results are also based on the big picture - what is your impact on the product? If we go by programming abilities alone, then managers must make base pay, which they don't. Also as you grow senior, the requirements change too.

And I don't know your scale of 'good' programmer either: What do you mean by that? Are you saying you are as good as Linus Torvalds or are you saying you are better than your current peers? I am assuming it is the latter - which probably means zilch in a site like this. Many folks here receive that recognition and over time they come to a conclusion that it doesn't mean much. Which is why you get a lot of naysayers. They aren't doubting you, they are just doubting the general feeling as been there, done that.

Re: Microsoft does away with stack ranking

#152

Post by overgryphon »

xymostech wrote: post #103
overgryphon wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

Except Microsoft doesn't stack rank people based on peer feedback- it's based on all the leads getting into a room and stack ranking their directs.

It's very possible to have a bad stack ranking but excellent peer feedback.

With this system, someone who delivers very well, but undermines other people or projects they work on would likely receive a high stack ranking, but poor peer feedback resulting in private discussions. People in charge of managing said employee may ignore the problem, attempt to place the employee under people who will help them address social problems, or quietly find a way to move them to a different org. It's quite likely none of this shows up in stack ranking.

Re: Microsoft does away with stack ranking

#153

Post by Ensorceled »

SubuSS wrote: post #151
Ensorceled wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN has a real problem with people who self identify as good programmers ... there is always a bunch of "no you're not" and "you only think you are" and "people who say they are good usually suck" type of responses. It's pretty weird reaction for a tech site where many good programmers hang out.

The problem is companies are looking for engineers while you are talking about this in terms of programmers. In most companies, it is about shipping and making a difference to the bottom line. It doesn't really matter if you are a good programmer if you are not getting things out of the door / ensuring future dev/maintenance will be pain free. For this programming is a tool, just like planning / estimation / design s…

I don't think that is it. If you self identify as a good engineer/developer/progammer you get the same response. It's the self identifying thing that's seems to be the problem.

Look at this thread, there are several who are very explicitly doubting me in no uncertain terms. Even doubting the idea that I'm good compared to my current peers.

Re: Microsoft does away with stack ranking

#154

Post by Zuider »

ethomson wrote: post #25
r00fus wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it the case the stacked ranking exacerbated the backstabbing issue? I see this move overall as a positive one for Microsoft - without removing the perverse rewards to screw over your teammates and other teams, the actual cultural fix can't take place. I think the culture will shift soon - Microsoft, for more than a decade, had no real competitors. They made more money each year whether they executed (see Win2k)…

My point was that no, I don't think stack ranking provides a greater impetus to backstabbing your coworkers than this sort of vague compensation model. In fact, I think a continuous model may lead to more backstabbing than exists now. Currently, I go into a bucket - let's say I'm a two, for instance - and all the twos get the same compensation. Can I backstab somebody so that I get a two and they get a three? Maybe.…

>But if we remove the buckets and we have some continuity...

But this is still stack ranking. What you are describing is still an ordinal system where employees had to be ranked in order from 'best' to 'worst'.

As I understand it, Microsoft are proposing to remove any sort of relative ranking between team members and instead reward for actual productivity.

Re: Microsoft does away with stack ranking

#155

Post by derefr »

matwood wrote: post #68
derefr wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know what, though? Productivity on a team can be just as separate from people's perception of you (i.e. how much they like you) as individual productivity is. Imagine this experiment: you have a great, productive team who has one member they all hate (and therefore assume isn't doing much for the team.) You take that person off the team... and the team's productivity plummets.

Or productivity goes up because other team members can now flourish without being berated.

Yes, that can happen--it's intuitive that that is what happens. But that doesn't mean that it's what does happen, even in a majority of cases. To guess at the result without doing the experiment is to rationalize the result you want to be true. You have to follow the numbers.

Re: Microsoft does away with stack ranking

#156

Post by ethomson »

Zuider wrote: post #154
ethomson wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point was that no, I don't think stack ranking provides a greater impetus to backstabbing your coworkers than this sort of vague compensation model. In fact, I think a continuous model may lead to more backstabbing than exists now. Currently, I go into a bucket - let's say I'm a two, for instance - and all the twos get the same compensation. Can I backstab somebody so that I get a two and they get a three? Maybe.…

>But if we remove the buckets and we have some continuity... But this is still stack ranking. What you are describing is still an ordinal system where employees had to be ranked in order from 'best' to 'worst'. As I understand it, Microsoft are proposing to remove any sort of relative ranking between team members and instead reward for actual productivity.

I'm saying that: there is a fixed bonus pool for employees. All of this bonus pool will be allocated. Said bonus pool will be allocated in a merit-based way such that those who are deemed "better" get more than those who are deemed "worse".

So yes, employees will indeed be sorted from 'best' to 'worst' by some metric. This is pretty much true of every performance-based evaluation system, no?

Removing the "stack ranking" system refers to removing the 20%/70%/10% buckets from 1-5 that we currently sort into, not the fact that we're doing a merit-based reward.

Thus my point remains: if our review system is a problem (and certainly a great many people seem to think that it is) then this seems like a tweak on the system, not an overhaul. What we're being evaluated on and who is doing the evaluating is much more important than whether we're explicitly "stack ranked" into buckets or not.

Re: Microsoft does away with stack ranking

#157

Post by dreamfactory »

Ensorceled wrote: post #147
dreamfactory wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

going by the upvotes, we aren't the only people to have seen this anti-pattern...

Yeah, this is why I kind of like project ownership even though it's now considered out of fashion. If you create technical debt, you own it and it's your future productivity that takes the hit. Eventually your productivity grinds to a halt as you fix problems in the crap you wrote before.

I look at it as technically informed product ownership - merging business and technical domain knowledge to make the right tradeoffs. How else can you execute effectively?

Re: Microsoft does away with stack ranking

#158

Post by Daviey »

kabouseng wrote: post #142
lmg643 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And even if your mother did not teach you much, you can get most of the lessons from "How to make friends and influence people" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influenc...

This book had a massive positive influence in my life. I'm glad I was introduced to it in my teens.

Re: Microsoft does away with stack ranking

#159

Post by kabouseng »

Daviey wrote: post #158
kabouseng wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And even if your mother did not teach you much, you can get most of the lessons from "How to make friends and influence people" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influenc...

This book had a massive positive influence in my life. I'm glad I was introduced to it in my teens.

You're lucky, I'm 30 and only now started reading it... :D
Post reply on HN