Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Poisonous Employee-Ranking System That Helps Explain Microsoft’s Decline
Slate ^ | Friday, August 23, 2013 | Will Oremus

Posted on 08/25/2013 6:24:11 AM PDT by SunkenCiv

There were many reasons for the decline of Microsoft under Steve Ballmer, including, as I wrote this morning, its lack of focus and its habit of chasing trends rather than creating them. But one that’s not obvious to outsiders was the company’s employee evaluation system, known as “stack ranking.” The system—and its poisonous effects on Microsoft’s corporate culture—was best explained in an outstanding Vanity Fair feature by Kurt Eichenwald last year...

So while Google was encouraging its employees to spend 20 percent of their time to work on ideas that excited them personally, Ballmer was inadvertently encouraging his to spend a good chunk of their time playing office politics. Why try to outrun the bear when you can just tie your co-workers' shoelaces?

Microsoft wasn’t the first company to adopt this sort of ranking system. It was actually popularized by Jack Welch at GE, where it was known as “rank and yank.” Welch defended the practice to the Wall Street Journal in a January 2012 article, saying, “This is not some mean system—this is the kindest form of management. [Low performers] are given a chance to improve, and if they don't in a year or so, you move them out. "

As the Journal and others have noted, what seemed to work for Welch—for a time, anyway—has produced some ugly results elsewhere. Even GE phased the system out following Welch’s departure.

(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: aboreyouknow; adoorknob; generalelectric; jackwelch; kurteichenwald; microsoft; msbuttboys; rankandyank; slate; stackranking; steveballmer; vanityfair; willoremus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-171 next last
To: gogeo; Henry Hnyellar

The interesting thing about the late Steve Jobs is, he had to be gone from Apple and take a lot of lumps for his stupid personal habits in order to reemerge as the effective and successful leader of Apple that he was in the final decade or so of his life.

The original iMac, which was the first big rollout after he returned (on an interim basis), was going to ship with a 33K internal modem, which was just idiotic; Jobs reacted by pulling the plug on that idea and going with the 56K. Up until he did that, the diehards defended the 33K, claiming that buyers wouldn’t even be using dialup — a foolish argument, because in that case, why include a modem at all? That’s when I started to realize that Jobs had changed during his exile.

He’s been gone a while, but he was always years ahead of the market, and years ahead of the technology, and his vision will be good for a good while yet. In addition, there’s engineering depth and creative depth at Apple that doesn’t get the big headlines, and that’s probably a good thing.


101 posted on 08/25/2013 10:58:48 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (It's no coincidence that some "conservatives" echo the hard left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

“I’m old-fashioned. I think collaboration is best taught on playing fields and other non-academic venues. It’s actually a dangerous crutch when thinking itself is the lesson.”

I’ve participated in some very powerful team building sessions and some very poor ones during my business career. The better ones stress dealing with hard interpersonal and business directly and honestly as well as team members holding each other accountable for performance and results. In those sessions personality and behavioral issues preventing the team from succeeding were dealt with by the team with a facilitator. These sessions were brutally honest and “real”, not theoretical. At the end of the multi-day session the team had wrestled with several real interpersonal issues that were getting in the way of successful collaboration.

The poor team building exercises were emotional “feel good” sessions. There was no direct application to business issues or problems getting the team members to collaborate. These sessions were about cheerleading and “trying harder”.

To your point, actually working through real issues in real time is a more productive exercise than listening to theory that may or may not apply to the leadership management tasks at hand.


102 posted on 08/25/2013 11:00:49 AM PDT by Soul of the South (Yesterday is gone. Today will be what we make of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: ziravan; Henry Hnyellar; driftdiver; ez; pierrem15

Thanks! I remember the ‘good’ old days, when [FR nick deleted] used to *organize* Apple bashing posses, and when just pointing that out was — Moslem-style — condemned as an attack.


103 posted on 08/25/2013 11:06:58 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (It's no coincidence that some "conservatives" echo the hard left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Soul of the South

And I’d say those difficult personalities simply didn’t play on enough sports teams. ;-)


104 posted on 08/25/2013 11:15:13 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: left that other site

What college was that? I can see this happening in a public school but not in a private college. I guess I’m just not buying this.


105 posted on 08/25/2013 11:22:41 AM PDT by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: adorno
Think about it: "one Apple product". That's not good. Especially for Apple, because, if that one product's sales start to dwindle and the iPHone falls from grace, it's back to HTC-type profits and market-cap for Apple. Heavy dependence on one product can be very damaging to a company, even if the product does well for years.

Don't forget the tablet (iPad) - a product that has yet to reach maturity. It will soon be outselling PCs and phones combined. People will soon have tablets in every room in the house including the car.

Rumor has it that Apple has another product in the pipeline that will create a whole new industry. Most likely a large screen that will have embedded electronics that will redefine the television set and make obsolete set-top boxes like Tivo, Roku and cable boxes, etc.

106 posted on 08/25/2013 11:28:36 AM PDT by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Do you have a link to that? I read WIRED magazine every month and never remember an article about a class that refused to take a final exam - thus all getting awarded an "A".

That doesn't even make sense. If they didn't take the test, how could they get any kind of grade at all?

107 posted on 08/25/2013 11:33:26 AM PDT by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
"Wired" Aug 2013, p. 86. The theme of the issue is "I'm a Cheater!"

Professor Peter Frohlich, computer science professor at Johns Hopkins University taught the class.

The stratery is that if Sally doesn't take the test, she get's a zero. If any student gets a higher grade, then Sally is in trouble. But if no one gets a higher grade, then Sally's zero qualifies as the highest grade in the class. The highest grade gets an "A", Sally has an "A" now. And since every other student scored exactly the same, then every student has an "A".

108 posted on 08/25/2013 11:42:30 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (21st century. I'm not a fan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

“And I’d say those difficult personalities simply didn’t play on enough sports teams. ;-)”

Actually I doubt most of them played sports.

Employees of an organization model the behavior of their leaders. If executives model collaborative behavior, and hold employees accountable for working effectively together, the organization will display collaborative behavior. If the executive staff is made of individuals with big egos, clawing their way to the top of the pyramid, employees will not be collaborative.

Unfortunately most corporate executive compensation systems reward individual performance over group performance. Therefore if I can make myself look good and you look bad while the organization suffers, I’m better of financially than if the organization succeeds but you look better than me.


109 posted on 08/25/2013 11:47:02 AM PDT by Soul of the South (Yesterday is gone. Today will be what we make of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
This article misses the point on both sides. Each approach has its strengths and weakneses, and neither serves the long-term needs of a company unless it's part of something larger.

A company's biggest threat is to long-term survival. This comes from sustainability - sustainability of products and services, but also of its corporate culture and processes.

The cited problem with Microsoft "rank and yank" is the focus on office politics, surviving in a team of top performers, and retribution from unscrupulous managers. The cited problem with Google/Apple is reliance on a single product, and if I may add, the risk of diverting focus to non-strategic activities.

The truth is that both approaches rely on the abilities of their people, and reward performance of individuals. The risk to survival is that people eventually leave through attrition or retirement. Companies that rely in the talent of individual contributors have a hard time replacing 25+ years of talent. Imagine the Chicago Bulls after Jordan retired, or the San Francisco 49ers after Montana and Young retired.

What companies are finding out is the need to replace individual performance with systems of process management, that is, get the expert knowledge out of the individual and into the process. The way to do this is to encourage and reward mentoring. This means changing the "rank and yank" to deemphasize individual contribution and reward teaching the next generation of worker. Doing that will lead to a collaborative workplace that doesn't lose focus on the corporate strategic goals.

-PJ

110 posted on 08/25/2013 11:52:33 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: duckman
Your story is reminiscent of the "forced distribution" rating system that caused me to leave a fortune 500 company at the peak of my career. Some satistics-ignorant HR MBA convinced management that every organization within the company must fit a normal distribution curve of performance -- no matter how small or how high-preforming that organization was.

After I had recruited a team of "cream of the crop" performers who were literally acknowledged -- world wide throughout our industry -- as the leaders in establishing the much-needed next generation of products for the industry -- I was told that I must rate those "stars" on the same "curve" used for janitors.

There was no way I could live with the rule that, if I rated one "star" "exceptional", then I must fire another.

So, after a career there for nearly twenty years, I left -- and never looked back...

As many folks in Texas were wont to say, I "saw the most beautiful sight in Texas" -- that company -- in my rear-view mirror -- for the final time...

What a shame -- for a once-great company to be viewed so scornfully -- not only by its employees -- but by the surrounding community in general.

111 posted on 08/25/2013 11:53:07 AM PDT by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias... "Barack": Allah's current ally...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

If the activities for which someone shows ability is to get rid of competitors as quickly as possible, the company will suffer all the way to the end. That’s the point of the article. Rewarding employees for their ability to maintain their own employment regardless of how it impacts the company turns MS into a gov’t agency style place to work.

MS has been moving toward the Apple model — Apple’s strength is its control over both hardware and software. Previously, MS was the OS company and (other than in the late 1970s and very early 1980s, when it was making some peripheral cards; and its current business making or outsourcing mice and keyboards, and btw, I love the Microsoft 5000 mouse, I’m on my second one) didn’t worry about the hardware. IBM hired MS to write a knock off of CP/M, and Gates retained rights to “port” the OS under their own label after a couple of years.

The clones (Leading Edge, Compaq, many many others) eventually drove IBM right out of the hardware business, and their own OS/2 never caught on.

Google’s model has been mostly a copy of MS’ OS-only strategy, using the foundation of the open-source OS and office suites that had been hacking away at MS market share for a few years already. If the Linux flavors had a real installer, suitable for regular folks, that free OS would have taken over everything by now. Geeks.


112 posted on 08/25/2013 12:07:56 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (It's no coincidence that some "conservatives" echo the hard left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
That’s the point of the article. Rewarding employees for their ability to maintain their own employment regardless of how it impacts the company turns MS into a gov’t agency style place to work.

Which is why monopolies and companies that are 'too big to fail' need to be broken up. Companies will treat employees real good, if they know said employees could easily jump to competing firms.

113 posted on 08/25/2013 12:11:04 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
"Microsoft's Decline"

From yesterday's WSJ:

Microsoft remains a behemoth financially. It generated nearly $78 billion in revenue in the year ended June 30—an average pace of $150,000 worth of sales every minute. The company's fat profit, amounting to $21.86 billion last year, remains the envy of most industries.

114 posted on 08/25/2013 12:14:54 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
The point of my post is that Apple (and perhaps Google) will eventually lose ground too, because they rely on specific people in specific positions. Once those people retire and are replaced by others, the company eventually changes because they relied too much on the person's individual capabilities.

Long-term viability reduces the impact of single contributors by developing systems of management (project management, support management, talent management, etc.). To grow this change, the rank and yank (or any HR reward system) has to put emphasis on handing down the knowledge to the next generation of worker, and not emphasize hoarding the knowledge in order to be at the top of the performance hierarchy.

In essence, top performance is no longer measured by output, but by knowledge transfer.

-PJ

115 posted on 08/25/2013 12:17:41 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

It didn’t make me feel like a team player. It made me more conservative. I’d rather do a paper and turn it in than do twice as much work and see others get the credit.
More than once, I had to do the group project by myself because I couldn’t sync up schedules with others or was paired with a slower kid who did nothing but put a name on it.


116 posted on 08/25/2013 12:23:40 PM PDT by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
Don't forget the tablet (iPad) - a product that has yet to reach maturity.

Actually, the iPad (Apple's tablet), is where most of the sales "slump" for Apple occurred. So, perhaps you are late to the news after Apple's quarterly report last month.

Also, when it comes to tablets, everybody else is outgunning Apple, where even Windows 8 tablets (not necessarily the Surface), are outselling the iPad. Then, there are the Android tablets, which by now are outselling iPads. There is no new "latest-and-greatest" to any of the iPads, and even the expected refresh of the form-factor coming in the fall, is not expected to be any kind of "game-changer". iPads might still be popular with the Apple faithful, but it's not the must-have product it was 3 years ago. So, iPads are really, "yesterday's" technology and basically, has-been tech.

When it comes to the iTV or whatever people wish to call it lately, there is no there, there. Redefining the TV is an area where there ain't much to do to improve how people wish to receive their content. Whatever new tech comes from Apple with TVs, everybody else will already have it. So, no advantage for Apple. This is not 2007 anymore, where other tech companies were caught with their pants down, and had to play catch-up. Lately, it's Apple that is having to play catch up.
117 posted on 08/25/2013 12:27:44 PM PDT by adorno (Y)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
and the used market for iPhones is strong.

That is an interesting problem for a corporation to have. Thier previous offerings are so strong that they actually compete with current ones.  In our household it works in a kind of funny way. Wife really likes ithingies, with lesser enthusiasm by MIL and myself. So when WifeofZeugma is ready to upgrade, everyone else gets the hand-me-downs. Currently, she has a 5, MIL has a 4s and I have a 4.

I think it's amazing that the products are so strong that the previous products work just fine all the way down the line. When WoZ upgrades, I'll probably still be able to get a few bucks for the 4 I'm using now. 

118 posted on 08/25/2013 12:34:59 PM PDT by zeugma (Is it evil of me to teach my bird to say "here kitty, kitty"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

You remember differently my friend.


119 posted on 08/25/2013 12:45:21 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
I won't argue with the poster her whose posts are one cliche after another. He wins the Bullshit Bingo game, for sure (2 links above.) I will only argue with the idea that the future is knowable, especially the future in technology. Nobody predicted the end of the mini computer industry (no, I don't mean the micro computers, i.e. PCs), and the survival of the mainframe behemoth. I remember when so-called mini-supercomputers were predicted to take over the world. All history. Who of the confident predictors here predicted the trouble that Nokia has been having? Or Blackberry?
120 posted on 08/25/2013 12:57:13 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-171 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson