Hacker News Reader

Comment by sriramk | Hacker News Reader

I've spent six years experiencing all sides of the MSFT review system. I think the articles blaming the curve/stack ranking are wrong - the root problem is that MSFT doesn't have much momentum and the stock isn't doing well.

When everyone isn't getting rich, everyone gets to fight with each other for the limited rewards that are handed down.

I see the same thing happening at Google where the internal systems that worked so well in 2005 are causing political strife with a stagnating stock in 2012.

View on HN

I'd have to agree, I honestly never saw the stack ranking system screw anyone over the way it is being made out to seem.

It is true that ultimately your manager has to make a case for what bonus/raise/promotion you deserve, and rankings will figure into that. If your manager sucks and/or hates you, he isn't going to fight for you. But if you have a sucky manager, you are in trouble no matter which company you're at.

But if you have a sucky manager, you are in trouble no matter which company you're at.

This is sadly true only most of the time. Occasionally companies are organized so that a bad manager affects his people very little before everyone realizes they are a bad manager and gets rid of them.

Sadly not every company is striving for that kind of organization.

Yea I'd agree the ideal is to get rid of sucky managers before they can crush too many people's careers. Microsoft isn't so good at actively firing bad people though, and that probably compounds the injustices of the stack rank system.

I think someone here quoted Bezos: "If you have a bad manager, then quit." Companies can only detect bad managers when their direct reports leave.

It's deeper than that. What matters in management ranks is subservience. A bad manager is someone who is not subservient or exhibits individualistic behavior. Direct reports leaving has no bearing on this at all, so it doesn't matter. in fact companies predict how long rank and file employees will stay on average for a number of reasons such as estimating recruiting expenses. I think what Bezos meant was that rank and file are not of the power structure, would never be able to influence the power structure, and are expected to leave after a time. The power structure would be protected at all costs even if every last non-administrative employee was driven out.

Realy I know a team member at a previous employer who where grateful lthat thier team had two peopel with terminal cancer so they ehere given the crap position on the stack rank to hit the teams quota for poor performers

> When everyone isn't getting rich, everyone gets to fight with each other

I like proverbs, they often distil penetrating wisdom. Over here, there's this saying: "Casa onde não há pão, todos ralham, ninguém tem razão" - literally translated, that's: in a home without bread, everybody nags/fights, no one is right.

Which is probably, and sadly, only too true.

Hence, even the best developers on earth work for the money :).

We are all people at the end of the day, nobody is immune except for a select few like Stallman...

He gets paid in attention. It's not as different as it seems.

Does that mean that the same will happen in any company whose stock starts to plateau? Because that would be a pretty scary thought. Can you really say that it's hopeless to change the reward system to prevent infighting and boost innovation again?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com