. . . a management system known as "stack ranking"—a program that forces every unit to declare a certain percentage of employees as top performers, good performers, average, and poor—effectively crippled Microsoft's ability to innovate. "Every current and former Microsoft employee I interviewed—every one—cited stack ranking as the most destructive process inside of Microsoft, something that drove out untold numbers of employees," Eichenwald writes. "If you were on a team of 10 people, you walked in the first day knowing that, no matter how good everyone was, 2 people were going to get a great review, 7 were going to get mediocre reviews, and 1 was going to get a terrible review," says a former software developer. "It leads to employees focusing on competing with each other rather than competing with other companies."
I'm sorry, I must be ignorant. Why is forcing good and bad review quotas a good idea?
What if everyone is special in their own way?
It looks to me as if Microsoft wants to shame employees that aren't cool enough or popular with management. I've seen this at my own jobs before, though I am such a PITA that they give up on that pretty quickly with me.
Isn't a job at a software company about writing code?
I have worked with various people from movie studios so I know the worst 1% of managers all too well, but at some point, don't people ever understand that people are there to go and do their job writing code and to go home and have a life?
I have said many times I would not like to work for Microsoft, because I know how much pressure they put people under, and for little to no reason. Let's put this guy who makes 90k under extreme and undue pressure then lets lose 6.2 billion on aQuantative, but then lets blame the 90k employee.
Not for me.