In theory that is false, in practice it is less clear (at least to me). The ranking (and subsequent curve fitting known formally as calibration) is done across a level-band (bascially 'job title') across a much wider scope than a single team (i.e. across a division). The idea that your co-workers are actively plotting to somehow take some reward from you come review time is a poor caricature of reality. Does it happen? Possibly, Microsoft is a huge company. Is it common? Not based on my experience and conversations with others in different parts of the company. Anecdotally I have heard 0 credible stories about it from anyone willing to put their name behind it (i.e. I have seen anonoymous posts on minimicrosoft, but more on that in the next sentence). Also minimicrosoft has a clear selection bias as people don't go their to chat about how much they love various aspects of Microsoft culture. Citing that as evidence is like citing a Tobacco company research paper on the effects of smoking, questions on impartiality have to be considered. That said, and as I pointed out in my first sentence, I have no insight into the actual going-ons in stack-ranking meetings, so for all I know it could be horse-trading and petty-politics and curve-fitting on a per-team basis. That would be immensely stupid, and I don't get the impression that accurately models reality, though what the exact granularity between team of 10 and division of a thousand is, I don't know. There are other things about the Microsoft review system to dislike before curve-fitting, but it is certainly up there, and probably the most publically known aspect.