> Microsoft has forced differentiation, not stack ranking. They aren't the same and differentiation is much better for employees.
In practice it is exactly the same. EMs are instructed that they must have someone at for instance 80 (below-meets-expectations), or occasionally at 60 (PIP). This has resulted in layoffs. The pseudonyms we're told to use are infantilizing when we can see the results.
> I'm sure you're feeling a lot of options due to your proximity
I'd ask you not make assumptions about my feelings in this, vs taking the statements I'm making at face value.
Not that it's unique to his division, I can assure you I worked organizationally close enough to know that, regardless of other sources of stress, there is(was) relevant work pressure up through the VP level encouraging late hours and long days that goes well beyond healthy, often acknowledged outright as the way to stand out in leadership AMAs. The evidence of this is documented in the article, and your dissembling is somewhat astonishing.
> If you have real details about the situation and that it was internal Microsoft policy or the pressure put in them by their manager which may not have aligned with Microsoft policy, that woukd be very useful information to share with the public.
I'm sharing it, you're just disregarding it. There is a system in place that through basic game theory ensures a prisoner's dilemma without compromise, with the escalation being longer hours and more work. While any given leadership may encourage it more or less, to not see how that pans out naturally when employment is on the line, especially as proven out by multiple recent rounds of 'performance' driven layoffs, seems purposefully obtuse. One doesn't know when the heart attack is coming, but one does know when the PIP is coming; we can't be surprised at the choices people will make.