Upvote the thread if you think that we should stop stack ranking.
Downvote the thread if you think we should continue wiht it.
You'll need to open this thread to vote using up and down arrows.
16 replies (most recent on top)
This is definitely happening. I completed all projects on time, stepped up to take on responsibility outside of my job description because there was a need, improved processes, developed strong working relationships, received several shared successes and top dollar award yet I was still ranked as inconsistently meets. There are 3 people on my team so I guess it fell on me to be the weak link.
As a manager I put a worthy employee in as exceeds and they said no. Put another in at meets and they said no inconsistently meets. Bonuses and raises are higher though. They got the high number of 4 and 5s down so now those who get meets will see between 2-3 pct raise Higher if lower comp ratio and 80 to 84pct target net bonus . If you get a lower than meets say goodby to your raise and bonus will be 50 pct or less of target.
I have no issues with rating all my employees as 'needs improvement', if they deserve it...or 'consistently exceeds' if they deserve that. What I don't like is HR saying guided distribution doesn't require certain numbers of people in various ratings, and then after your recommendations go in someone up the chain responds telling you it very much IS a requirement.
I have complete faith that our management will F up any ideas for improvement/change. Especially if HR is involved. This includes changing the rating system of employees and stacking or not stacking. They can’t do anything well. It might start out as a possible solid idea, but by the time they put their own spin on it, overcomplicate it, oversell it, and overdo it: it will be a hot mess. Then they will hire a different consultant, and change it again and start all over next year.
Laid off employees should sue them for inconsistencies in the priorities and messaging coming from the top every year. Every year, it’s different review forms, different rating levels, different company priorities, now there are questions and misunderstandings about whether people are stacked or if there are forced tier %s. How are employees supposed to know what is expected each year? It changes every year. I bet we could win a class action suit.
Its a management problem. Previously, the majority of team members were getting 4s. Sorry but not everyone can get that grade year in and year out. Managers are too concerned in keeping the peace and advocating for their people. Unfortunately, management involves some tough love. The stack ranking system ensures a bell curve of performance. Same is happening with managers.
Wells Fargo was, and continues to be, their own worst enemy. We will eventually implode,
The unfortunate consequences of Wells Fargo’s policies is that they discourage employees and departments from working together as one team working towards one common goal of the organization being a success as a whole. They prefer a competitive environment which just pits everyone against each other.
Because each department is their own cost center, we are all busy trying to pin costs on the other departments so that our own department looks like we’re cutting costs. Therefore, the mail department doesn't want to deliver the WSJ anymore. Tech support charges us if we need their services. If there is an error that involves 2 departments, the managers get ugly trying to get the other department to take it whereas we use to split it 50/50 in the spirit of professional cooperation.
Now, we are pitting employees against each other too? Are we purposely trying to destroy the business from the inside?
I’m in a department which involves a lot of high $ risk, and we prevent errors by working together as a team. If employee A is on the phone, the other employees keep an eye on their work until they can hang up and vice versa. We work together to problem-solve, two heads are better than one. The more experienced employees help the new younger employees with historical knowledge, and the younger employees help the older employees with more up-to-date efficiency ideas. My strengths are in one area and my teammates have other strengths. No one person is strong in everything, but we are perfect as a unit. However, if we allow stacked ranking to infiltrate our team, the only negative downstream effect will be to Wells Fargo.
I think managers look at it in many different ways. For some it may come down to who they can live without. If I have two employees who both do a good job and do what is expected and they have to give one meets and one inconsistently meets, the employee you can more easily live without will get the lower rating.
so to succeed in stack ratings, my co-worker does what they can to make me and others look bad. It is definitely in their best interest to do this based on this rating system. So one day i left an hour early, my wife file for a divorce, so was kind of emotional time. My co-worker told my manager I was not really interested in the work here. Like I said with stack ratings it is in their best interest.
I am only using this one example. Not sure how this is good. I would say they need to use KPI's and rate people in those area based on this.
There’s no problem with stack ranking - it’s what happens as a result of the stack ranking that is either good or bad. I posted in another thread that I have 8 directs and did not rate any of them below a “3” level this year. Everyone is performing - it’s been a long, hard year and everyone has contributed to some really big wins. Some have done more than others, so I have a stack ranking in my head. When all this review stuff is done, anyone could look at the ratings given plus money allocated for raise/bonus and have a pretty solid idea what my stack rank was.
What I would disagree with vehemently would be an approach that forces me to stack rank AND also forces me to put my lowest X% as non-performers.
To the previous poster commenting about managers downgrading those they see as smarter than themselves - that’s a long-term loser of a strategy. I’m a manager, not an individual contributor (though I do contribute). I should be graded on the strength of my team. I’m always looking for people who are smarter and more talented than I am.
GE came up with the concept and they abandoned it...
I have about 30 years of work experience - it's evenly split between companies that had stack ranking and the ones that did not.
I can tell you that, in my experience, it made no difference in terms of performance or quality of work / employees.
The only thing that was different was a constant sense of fear and some paranoia among employees in companies that had stack ranking.
I have no scieitific proof of what's batter, so this is purely ancedotal - I may be totally off but it feels this way...
If you don't trust your manager to come up with good rankings, that's a sign you should have been looking for other opportunities a long time ago, inside or outside the company. But assuming that's not the case, and if layoffs unfortunately come to your team, you should prefer they actually keep the people who are the most productive.
I know I do. Never mind my own job, I have teammates who are in a hub city with me, and teammates who aren't. The teammates outside of the hub are far, far more productive and skilled than the rest. If it comes down to it, I want to work with those who are good at what they do! I don't care where they live. I just don't know if the powers that be see it that way (but I know my own manager does).
My issue isn’t with the idea of stack ranking, but more on the guided distribution % of the middle and bottom tiers by the company. the company guide effectively assume that 15% of the folks will be rated as under performers, but in reality that should be somewhere between 7-10%.
Completely agree!
If managers are honest with themselves
Some are, some aren’t, and some protect their friends and get rid of anybody who is smarter than they are or doesn’t kiss their rear.
@rlb+18twRibZ the problem with stacked rankings is right there in your post
If managers are honest with themselves
Some are, some aren’t, and some protect their friends and get rid of anybody who is smarter than they are or doesn’t kiss their rear.
Why shouldn't it continue? Not everyone is #1 and not everyone is at the bottom of the rung. If managers are honest with themselves they can easily tell you which employees are better than others even though they all might be doing a good job.