Stack Ranking Performance Reviews

it's a raeasonnable article, the problem is some companies have percentages of categories, and sometimes they ask their managers to put a few people in each, and people with good performance end up.. with a bad mark because the manager HAS to put a few people in that category, regardless of their performance or work...for example, blizzard where they have a stacking ranking. the manager evaluated each member of his team. but because of "quotas" that manager was asked to grab a

Large company, performance is based almost entirely on feedback from peers and those you report to with check-ins every 6 months. Overall score from 1-5 with a 3 being "meets expectations" and the most common rating by far.The problem is that the feedback from superiors seems to be weighted much higher so the peer feedback is almost useless so don't bother mentoring or helping someone get back in front of their tasking. This leads to a lot of I'm-working-so-hard the

Every org of, say, 100 people has a quota of X poor performers that they need to produce to senior management every year.Each manager of, say, 10 people rates their own reports.The managers in the org compare notes, and count up how many poor performers they have between them.If the number is below X, managers who did not downrate enough people are told to go back, and find more people to give bad ratings to.If they can't find those people, that's fine - then those managers

I've seen this happen at companies before. The other side I've seen is: HR bod: sorry, you can't give everyone a 5 on your team, someone has to have a 1 Manager: but, I've hired my team sensibly! HR bod: sorry, you can't give everyone a 5 on your team, someone has to have a 1 :(

Thought experiment: how would you feel about stack ranking all managers but no employees?

I like this part :> " Mayer also favored a system of quarterly performance reviews, or Q.P.R.s, that required every Yahoo employee, on every team, be ranked from 1 to 5. The system was meant to encourage hard work and weed out underperformers, but it soon produced the exact opposite. Because only so many 4s and 5s could be allotted, talented people no longer wanted to work together; "Can somebody talk about his experience in the same conditions?

Reminds me of "stack ranking" in performance reviews.

I left my job at BigCo because I was part of a 8 person team where the manager was supposed to create a normal distribution out of scores from 1-5. I was one of two employees recognized for doing an excellent job, but my manager could rate just one of us as "excellent".During a performance review, my manager talked for an hour about how much I'm contributing and what an amazing job I do. Then he ranked me as average. I was extremely disappointed because I wanted the awesome job I do to get mo

At Meta managers can't really get away with hiding low performers. Your performance review isn't finalized by your manager, but rather the manager submits your review to a calibrating board that tries to ensure fairness and maintain quality standards. They will refute at all cost that this is stack ranking but you are absolutely graded on the curve of the other engineers in your department and level.

Don't take it personally, managers at bigger companies have to evaluate their teams on a bell curve. The whole team can't score a 5 and someone has to be worse than the group.