Microsoft does away with “stack ranking” employee rating
For those that do not know, stack ranking gained popularity years ago at General Electric. Seeing such a large company have success with the system, other large enterprises followed suit, but not without controversy.
Forced ranking (at least how it is run at Microsoft) requires managers to rate their employees on a scale of 1 to 5, and it has to follow a bell curve. That means that some employees have to receive poor ratings, the bulk of a team would fall in the middle and only the brightest stars would earn the highest ratings.
The merits of the system appeared to be obvious, it allowed only the strongest performers to earn the appropriate praise (and bonuses, and promotions). The problems with such a system are equally obvious, even some solid performers might find themselves relegated to the bottom of the ratings if for no reason other than someone had to be rated at the bottom for the model to work.
Effective immediately, the old system is gone, and going forward, reviews will become a little more frequent, and managers will be given more discretion as to how bonuses are distributed across their team.
As Steve Ballmer is set to leave Microsoft in the coming months, events like this show that he is still running things as the company implements its new strategy. The revisions to personnel evaluations will surely offer a bump in morale and with high morale comes great thinking. With great thinking, comes great ideas and we know what can stem from great ideas.
source: The Wall Street Journal
6. papss (Posts: 2870; Member since: 03 Sep 2012)
I haven't heard of this before. I hope this equates into great ideas.
7. itsdeepak4u2000 (Posts: 1874; Member since: 03 Nov 2012)
System should be fair enough to all and solid performers must get their credits.
8. saiki4116 (Posts: 296; Member since: 31 Mar 2011)
Screw this System..All IT companies and Many More use this System to rate Employee Year End Performance.
9. CellularNinja (Posts: 260; Member since: 27 Sep 2011)
I see the idea behind the method, but it obviously isn't without its flaws.