In November 2013, Microsoft Corp. announced it had ended its controversial "stack ranking" employee-review and compensation system and no longer requires managers to grade employees against one another and rank them on a scale of 1 to 5. The most contentious aspect of this approach was its targeted, or forced, distribution requirements, which meant managers had to designate a small percentage of their direct reports as underperformers.
"No more curve. We will continue to invest in a generous rewards budget, but there will no longer be a pre-determined targeted distribution. Managers and leaders will have flexibility to allocate rewards in the manner that best reflects the performance of their teams and individuals, as long as they stay within their compensation budget."
The stack ranking system was put in place for Microsoft's 2011 performance reviews. Employees received one rating based on their manager's assessment and a calibration process (typically with managers one or two levels above the employee). The rating ranged from 1 (highest) to 5 (lowest). A 3 rating equaled target compensation that was competitive with what was offered in the local job market. Targeted distribution limits the percentage of workers in each rating category.
Stack Ranking: Job Ratings and Rewards and Microsoft
Restricted stock units
The single rating triggered increases in merit pay, bonuses and the awarding of restricted stock units, with the size of the increase tied to factors such as job family and discipline. This was intended to allow the company to invest its compensation budget more heavily in positions deemed most critical and in disciplines most significant to the company's success, such as engineering, research and development. (For more information about how stack ranking worked at the software giant, see the SHRM Online article "Integrating Performance Management and Rewards at Microsoft.")
'Rank & Yank' or 'Differentiation'?
Stack ranking is still championed at many companies, and in particular at technology firms. Nevertheless, critics refer to it derisively as "rank and yank," meaning that employees who end up in the bottom ranks are often fired or encouraged to leave.
"If you are hiring competent people, what does it say about an organization when 10 percent of those people fail each year?" management consultant Aubrey Daniels commented to SHRM Online. "Rank stacking is punishing to the rater and the ratee. It produces an environment where employees compete with each other more than with competitors in the marketplace."
However, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed published in the wake of Microsoft's announcement, former General Electric CEO Jack Welch, credited with popularizing stack ranking while running GE, defended the process—when it’s done right. "Most experienced businesspeople know that 'rank and yank' is a media-invented, politicized, sledgehammer of a pejorative that perpetuates a myth about a powerfully effective real practice called (more appropriately) differentiation," Welch wrote.
One criticism of stack ranking specifically, and pay differentiation generally, is that it devalues teamwork. Welch responded: "Nonsense. If you want teamwork, you identify it as a value. Then you evaluate and reward people accordingly. You'll get teamwork; I guarantee it."
Similarly, David Calhoun, CEO of Nielsen Holdings and former vice chairman of GE, told Fortune magazine that he still uses and supports stack ranking, saying, "I'm a fan of relative ranking, a big fan. At GE there was only one objective, and that was to force honesty. … And there's nothing that quite forces that more than employees knowing that they expect to know how that manager ranks them, and then asking that manager, 'Tell me where I rank and tell me why.' "
Organizations have different cultures, and those cultures change over time, as does corporate leadership. A pay philosophy that may work best for one company, at one point, may not be the right solution for others. What's vital is that performance-review and compensation systems be aligned with and support an organization's overall mission and values, have the backing of senior leaders, and be clearly communicated and explained to line managers and employees throughout the company.
A Contentious Practice
Typical of the water-cooler debate over stack ranking are comments posted on a Fortune article about Microsoft's action, which included remarks such as these:
Let's say you have 10 people who would all rate 8/10 at a company that rates their employees against an objective scale. Why would you want to force out someone who's a rock star anywhere else?
Everyone isn't a top performer. You have to assess performance somehow. Ranking at least provides a tool to improve human capital over time.
These kinds of systems…only "work" inasmuch as a person successfully manipulates the political environment at their work. They invariably result in sabotaging fellow co-workers.
No…You do not want the quality of your work evaluated against the work of others. You want a gold star for participating.
As artificial intelligence technology continues to develop, the demand for workers with the ability to work alongside and manage AI systems will increase. This means that workers who are not able to adapt and learn these new skills will be left behind in the job market.
A vast majority of U.S. professionals say students entering the workforce should have experience using AI and be prepared to use it in the workplace, and they expect higher education to play a critical role in that preparation.
An organization run by AI is not a futuristic concept. Such technology is already a part of many workplaces and will continue to shape the labor market and HR. Here's how employers and employees can successfully manage generative AI and other AI-powered systems.