I was once a top performer and got good ratings but was relaxed by a manager’s pet.
How do stack rankings work? Is it against whole people at your level or against your direct team?
9 replies (most recent on top)
Stack Rankings will morph into "forced ranking". This will allow for "objective" layoff. Whole thing relies on objectively measuring your employee's performance. GE did this with six sigma. Wells will (is) doing it with "agile scrumfall".
Yes, there is an employee performance management strategy known as "rank and yank" or "forced ranking" that involves identifying and removing the lowest-performing employees within an organization. This approach gained popularity in the 1980s and 1990s, particularly in companies like General Electric under the leadership of Jack Welch. The idea behind this strategy is to create a competitive work environment by rewarding top performers and removing the bottom performers to drive overall improvement.
In a forced ranking system, employees are evaluated and ranked against each other based on their performance, and a predetermined percentage of employees, often around 10%, are designated as low performers and subject to potential termination, demotion, or other consequences. This approach aims to create a higher-performing workforce by encouraging competition and focusing on continuous improvement.
However, it's important to note that forced ranking systems have received criticism and are not widely embraced in contemporary management practices. Critics argue that such systems can lead to a toxic work environment, promote internal competition at the expense of collaboration, and potentially punish employees who are not given the necessary support or resources to succeed. Many organizations have moved away from forced ranking and adopted more holistic and developmental performance management approaches that focus on coaching, feedback, and supporting employees in their growth and development.
There is no benefit, except once you are known as an over achiever it sticks with you. They tend to get more lenience on my team but also get most of the work.
It’s usually measured at the director level and above. Each individual team doesn’t need to meet the 5/15/60/15/5 ratio. I’ve never had a “1” on my team. Rated one person a “5” last year cause he really busted his nut, but normally have 1-2 “4’s” and no “5”, rest are “3” and if someone has a bad year they get a “2”. Never been asked to modify my submissions.
I wasn't an over achiever but was the person who led my team in the amount of work done. Was told years ago by my first two managers, do more work than others and you will be fine. It's what I did and kept doing for 10 years because that's who I am, not a person that just sits back. And where did it get me, laid off two months ago. I'll never be that person again as I worked with other techs that did as little as possible, and they still have their jobs.
If it’s just one overachiever, then the only person it really makes a difference for is the 2nd best performer on that team. If it’s a team full of overachiever’s, we’ll then maybe you’re under-achieving?
Charlie has directed to get rid of another 60 percent of staff. This is the way to ax people
When they got rid of "target bonuses", we all knew it was a way to reduce bonuses and expressed our frustration to our manager. He actually replied, "it could be higher"! Technically, I guess he is correct. Have not seen it in practice.
It starts within your own team and then calibration sessions occur up the chain for all those below them. Unless your manager can REALLY articulate and support the higher ratings on their team, they are likely to get knocked down in favor of those managers who can to achieve the desired distribution of ratings.
Since there is no required bonus target now, I think some managers try to give those employees a higher bonus. Not positive but that’s just what I heard.