Hacker News Reader

Comment by technotony | Hacker News Reader

Some think you should do this annually. "Back when he was running GE, Jack Welch famously argued that leaders should fire the bottom 10 percent of their workforce each year, as part of an orderly continuous improvement process." https://www.inc.com/paul-b-brown/should-you-fire-10-of-your-...

View on HN

Yep, the warped logic of stack ranking still infects HR thought to this day, in some quarters anyway. It's one of those notions that sounds brilliant at first, but then when you think it all the way through, it reveals itself as patently bizarre and misguided.

As noted, it creates a really unhealthy intra-team sabotage mindset as everybody competes to avoid being at the bottom of the stack. It puts managers in a horrible spot, having to rank 'n' purge when maybe their team was humming along wonderfully all year. It creates an atmosphere of awful fear and dread that distracts from the work.

As one of my buddies said back when MS was still using this accursed system -- "If they'd used stack-ranking at Los Alamos, hell, Oppenheimer would probably have had to fire Feynman!" {obviously not reflective of the historical reality, but I think pithy nonetheless}

>"If they'd used stack-ranking at Los Alamos, hell, Oppenheimer would probably have had to fire Feynman!"

This seems pretty accurate to me, just imagine what would have happened if the top 10 people in the organization were put on the most important team, and then stack day rolled around...

I worked at a company that did this, then eventually phased it out. We were also required to do a self eval on a variety of categories, one a three point scale: exceeds expectations, meets or does not meet. My managing director point blank told me: no one exceeds expectations and if you dont meet, you're gone. So, the self eval was "meets" all the way down. After 2 years of that bullshit, I stopped filling it out. Figured, if theyre not going to take the opportunity for honest self reflection, why bother? I lasted there another 7 years before I left on my own volition. Never in the 7 years that I did not so the self eval did a manager mention it to me. Fuck that shit.

Sounds like all of the issues could be solved by just not being committed to 10%, moving to 5% or 2.5% as your workforce gets stronger. And spread the responsibility of choosing who to fire beyond single individuals, so a team of people is responsible for figuring out who is not contributing.

That would help, but even so, stack ranking is social and cultural poison. You can do it one random year, but do it every year and watch cooperation within and between teams die out because it's a dog eat dog world you've built.

At what point will business schools please start teaching that stack ranking is a bad idea?

Ah the glory of the stack ranking. Microsoft did this as well, and it was much celebrated when they stopped, as the stack ranking had a lot of effects that had nothing to do with performance (like coworkers stonewalling each other, or infighting, and what do you do with an org of rockstars).

Not to mention that eventually you end up firing some really smart people and find worse replacements (not in the least due to shitty reputation - but also because of regression to the mean and because people are biased towards hiring worse than themselves in this regime). Definitely so at 10% p.a. if you're in a remotely niche industry.

Apparently some managers used to hire sacrificial lambs with the express purpose of culling them to spare the rest of the team.

Can confirm

Were the sacrificial lambs at least told in secret that they were 'hired in order to be laid off' at the next round? I hope they were not just given rote tasks, but allowed to explore their skills while they are in limbo so that they can train-up or look for jobs... Nah that's just wishful thinking.

Telling someone they're going to be laid off and having them build skills both reduce their "goal performance," thereby serving the purpose of justifiably lowering their stack rank. I can imagine hiring some smart guy with a good resume, then telling him congratulations he just won a year's supply of O'Riley books.

"I don't even have to come into the office, I can do this job from home."

If the ‘lamb’ is unfamiliar with the concept there is no hint you could give that would not also open you up to lawsuits.

When I was told that I wasn’t good enough by my new boss and should look for another job on my first day, I thought it was ridiculous, and that it would be possible to change her mind. She was not my hiring boss due to a reorganization that happened just before I started. I hung on for a year and the stress literally nearly killed me, I ended up quitting for health reasons. I got the lowest ranking you could get in what I believe to be the shortest amount of time in the company’s history.

The funny thing is is that I’m a freakish prodigy at my work and after a successful stint at a different company, I ended up back at the same company at much much higher position.

Hating companies like this is like hating a snake that bit you... it’s a snake. At least in the US the money is better.

If I could give advice to anyone who finds themselves in a similar position it would be that failure is not the end and not always your fault. And probably find a new job sooner rather than later.

>Hating companies like this is like hating a snake that bit you...

That's true, but in this case it's pretty clear that one defective personality in particular was responsible.

I think this happened to me at one point.

Additionally, when the stack ranking is done at the first or second-level manager (which is usually the case), you end up making sub-optimal decisions. Meaning: the bottom 10% on team A may be better than the top 20% of team B. Which then leads A-players to seek to work on B-teams, so they can be on the top of the stack ranking.

Stack ranking is a failed experiment, and by now I think all companies realize that.

It won't be over until Harvard, Wharton, and all the other top business schools teach that stack ranking is destructive. Jack Welch is a blithering idiot if he still believes in stack ranking. I've a feeling that the reason a CEO of a company like GE would like stack ranking is the false sensation of control it must give them. In reality, one of the key reasons you have managers in the first place is that management is a people problem, so you need people to manage people, and managers need to get to know the people they manage.

Rockstars don't like moving the amps.

No cooperation within teams (one of you has to go, one of you gets a good bonus, the rest get nothing).

No cooperation between teams either (for similar reasons, and besides, you're busy enough trying to shine within your team).

Any innovation that requires a solid team and cooperation just doesn't happen. Lots of innovation that can be done by just one or two people doesn't get approval from mgmt because they don't get it and are busy measuring the wrong things.

So you're forgoing all the best innovations while building a toxic work environment. Your best and brightest will either stay and game the system, or go elsewhere and be happier.

Stack ranking is a highly destructive tool of management. I would recommend it to my competitors, and only to my competitors.

Look at where GE is now. Yes, Welch is gone now but the effects of his leadership are there.

Are we just going to completely ignore the 17 year reign of Jeff Immelt? GE Capital gained enough prominence to destroy the company under his reign. Jeff was the one that acquired one of the nations largest subprime lenders in 2004, primed perfectly to maximize losses in 2008.

You're reinforcing my point Immelt was hand selected by Welch as his replacement. Additionally, Welch made GE's transition to financial services.

Jack Welch was a massive GE Capital fan - he praised it to the skies in his books and it really came into its own under him. He said (and I'm paraphrasing) that as a chemical engineer by training, he was blown way that you didn't have to design, manufacture, "bend metal" with GE Capital - just turn GE's strong balance sheet into more money.

Maybe it's possible that that type of culture and system made Immelt the best candidate to take over? Or influenced his own decision-making?

Someone can probably confirm if it's still the case, but based on their Glassdoor reviews they have done stack ranking in the past which is often used to cull the bottom X% each year.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com