
Got a 4? You just got fired from Microsoft - cek
http://ceklog.kindel.com/2012/08/27/got-a-4-you-were-just-fired-from-microsoft/
======
trimbo
Microsoft, I think, will be looked back upon as a great example of stack
ranking's failure or success. At GE, it is looked upon as a success. But GE's
workforce is (mostly) not in the world of knowledge-workers. They're not
expected to come up with great products that sell to the masses, for the most
part.

I often wonder if Microsoft's inability to get great products to market in a
timely fashion is due to stack ranking. They clearly have great people who
work there, who can make great products. Even the Zune was a great product.
They arrive on the market about 3 years too late, and then require iteration
on top of it. Is this because people there optimize their careers for "their
number", rather than what's truly best for the company? Only time will tell.

~~~
majormajor
I think it would be very lazy to reduce Microsoft's ultimate success or
failure in this decade to a single policy. There are lots of factors that can
make large companies fail to move well with the times.

Likewise, I wouldn't give it much credit if MS (or Google, or whoever) does
well. With a few notable counterexamples, most very large companies end up
adopting processes to manage the size of the company, but how large is the
impact of the particular process chosen? Is it really controlling success or
failure?

Bad management/vision can happen in any system.

~~~
homosaur
What would Ballmer rate in CEO stack ranking with the rest of corporate
America?

------
wcdolphin
Nothing too new in the post, perhaps a little bit more jaded than how it is
often explained.

The part I found most interesting was your opinion on the different roles at
Microsoft (quoted below). As someone with some experience in the PM role, I
found it especially interesting. I find the opinion you have described
spectacularly oversimplified, specifically in that the goal is just to write
software (something only developers are needed), instead of writing the
/right/ software, and at the right time. It is interesting to examine the
different roles and how they interact, i.e. how devs often think of PMs as
meetings and overheads, whilst PMs sometimes think of devs simply as
resources. Tests, of course, are often left out in their own world, just
hacking on whatever, and fixing the builds :-)

\--------- Did you notice I said “software developer” above? This advice is
really targeted at people who are good at and love actually writing software.
It somewhat applies to program managers, product managers, and so forth, but
hey, we work in the SOFTWARE industry. The only clear-cut jobs are for those
who actually write the shit. Everyone else just helps.

~~~
cek
Author here.

I was a PM for a great part of my 21 years at Microsoft. I'm quite sure I am
"spectacularly" oversimplifying things. That was intentional.

Here's the problem, related to this specific post, which is about mediocre
reviews:

A SDE's job can be measured far more objectively than most other roles in a
software company. PM's, specifically, have an additional challenge in that
what they do is extremely hard to measure.

But don't get me wrong, I was not trying to diminish the importance of the
other roles in creating great products.

------
tptacek
The friends I have who have gotten offers from Microsoft were all informed
that Microsoft, as a matter of policy, pays 60% of the top market salary. Has
that policy changed?

~~~
ghshephard
Every company I've ever worked at - has claimed they pay Radford 50 [1] . (50%
of the average).

Unless every company pays their employees pretty much exactly the same,
somebody out there has to be in the Radford 75, 90, and presumably 100. You'd
think that they would brag about that so the best employees would apply there.

It should be clear why companies won't admit to being in the radford 40, 20,
10, and presumably 0. :-)

[1] <http://www.radford.com>

~~~
danielweber
I'm really confused by "50% of the average." Wouldn't the average be 100% of
the average? I read "50% of the average" as paying someone half of what they
are worth.

~~~
logical42
yeah i agree it is a confusing (and redundant thing to say), but i'm fairly
positive (from context) that what he meant was '50th percentile of salaries
for that position' or 'the average salary for that position'.

------
throwaway118
The system is really ugly in the sense there's a percentage of people that get
each score and MUST be met each cycle.

20% people of each group will get a 4/5 regardless of their work done. Then
the other 50% of the people that bust their butt off are told: Sorry! We can
only tell 10 percent of the people they rock.

~~~
kabdib
Yeah, you can be a really, really good dev in a really, really good group, and
get screwed. But if you move to another, weaker group you'll start getting
great reviews again.

It's nuts. It's probably what's going to force me out. I want to work with
very good people, but to get good reviews I'd have to work with
knuckledraggers.

~~~
cek
Author here.

This is the point where I have my biggest beef with the Microsoft system. I
was fortunate to have worked in and managed several groups that were CLEARLY
exceptional. One team I built was built from the ground up and EVERYONE I
hired (about 30 people) had previously had 3.5 or better reviews.

In the end, I did those people a dis-service by hiring them. Some of them got
3.0s the following year. If I had been 'smarter', I would have 'padded' the
team with a few poor-performers to ensure that I could meet the curve.

However, earlier in my career, someone I worked with, and whom I thought I
respected, confided in me that he did this; he padded this team with "3.0s"
intentionally. This felt completely and morally bankrupt to me. So I vowed to
never do it myself.

The way this is supposed to be dealt with is that the stack ranking is
supposed to balanced up to groups of ~250 people. The VPs or GMs of these
larger groups are supposed to 'break ties' and deal with outliers by using
their larger population. At a certain scale (and I believe this) it is
realistic to believe that there can be a 20%, 20%, 40%, 13%, 7% bucketing.
However, this system requires managers to be ready & willing to fight all the
way up the chain. And, to a certain extent ALL managers at MS think their
groups are better than others (due to the competitive nature induced by the
stack ranking we're talking about also applying with even more dire
consequences).

There is a related issue that the Microsoft system causes that is directly
related to this: Even though groups must put 7% of their people in the "5"
bucket, and are expected to "manage those people out" they are not rewarded
for doing it, at all. In fact, it is _in those managers best interests_ to
keep those "5s" around.

Sad. And Frustrating.

~~~
snogglethorpe
So what happens if you simply refuse to play along, and give your superior an
intelligent argument as to why you're doing so?

From the stories I've heard from friends at MS, there does really seem to be a
sense of office-politics-gone-insane there.

At some point, it seems there has to be a backlash.

~~~
cek
At some point, as a manager, you put your own career/reputation on the line.

It is important to remember we are discussing outliers here. 4s & 5s represent
20% of the company. My blog post does not impact that other 80% really at all,
and within the 20%, 7% likely really deserve to be let go anyway (IMO).

It's a big company. With any sufficiently large population there will be
problems. I'm not a MS apologist, but at the same time MS produces some pretty
damn good things regardless.

------
butterfi
Dear Microsoft

You may have received a payment from me, likely for something X-Box related my
kids have requested. On my payment, you will notice a number, from one to
five. The breakdown for the numbers are as follows:

5: Wow, I really love your products! Each one is a groundbreaking example of
"the road ahead." The design and execution are an example to the rest of us of
what success looks like. Sadly MCSFT, you just didn't make the cut this year,
but don't worry, only a few of your competitors ever get this number, i.e.
Google and Apple.

4: Rock star! I couldn't make it through the day without one of your products.
To be honest, you didn't really perform as a "4" this year, but work hard! I'm
sure you can do it!

3: Thank you! My 2008 copy of Word still works great, and on the rare occasion
I boot into Windows 7 I think, "Hey, this OS isn't so bad. I've used worse."

2: By "worse," I mean Vista. Yeah, it works, but honestly, I'm still a little
put out by the whole experience. If you really put your heart and mind into
it, I'm sure Win 8 will be the run-away success I know you've been working
hard to achieve. But, don't screw this up, okay? People are watching.

1: Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Failure to actually deliver
innovation, years of being a bully, and products known for their bugginess is
no way to run a company. I might care more, but I don't. I'm too busy watching
netflix on my iPhone.

I hope this helps. PS - I'm sorry, but thats not what I meant by "you're
number one."

~~~
batiudrami
Snarky, not even close to relevant to the article and adds nothing to the
conversation. I sure am glad this is the top post.

------
tonetheman
Wow hard to figure out if the post is sarcastic or mad or just a matter fact
this is how it is. It seems like a sad place. :(

~~~
majormajor
Doesn't sound bad to me. Seems like a good place to be if you're performing
well.

~~~
jinushaun
The problem is the system imposes a bottom 10% even if everyone performs
equally well.

~~~
matwood
_The problem is the system imposes a bottom 10% even if everyone performs
equally well._

The problem isn't ranking people, it's how they determine the score. Are the
bottom 10% really the bottom or the people who were the worst at selling
themselves to their managers? Do you really thinking that everyone performs
equally well?

I look at the MSs and Googles of the world as the big leagues in software
development. They only want to hire the best and only want to keep the best
around. Not everyone can make it in the big leagues, it's just that simple.

This sort of thing happens in pro sports every single day. NFL teams are
finishing their cuts right now.

~~~
tsotha
_The problem isn't ranking people, it's how they determine the score._

That's not the problem either. The real problem is stack ranking is a morale
killer. You get rid of the bottom ten percent and then the top ten percent
says "Damn, every day I come to work I feel like there's this black cloud
hanging over the cube farm. This place sucks, and I can get a job anywhere I
want!" Then they do.

So you're left with the middle - people who do their job reasonably well and
aren't dumb enough to take risks that might get them downgraded. Projects that
are in trouble can't be turned around because the best (remaining) people stay
away. And the people who couldn't get away find other jobs. I saw this happen
on a project at a financial company I worked for. They needed eight or ten
developers and went through at least twenty in the space of a year.

Does Microsoft have well-motivated top talent? It certainly doesn't show in
the product lineup.

~~~
matwood
_The real problem is stack ranking is a morale killer._

Depends. I've been on teams where the weak links are the morale killer.
Busting my ass while watching people do little and continue with a job or
worse yet get the team accolades made me leave my last job.

 _Does Microsoft have well-motivated top talent? It certainly doesn't show in
the product lineup._

This is a completely separate issue. I would argue that MSs problems have
nothing to do with engineering talent. Their problems stem from the management
side with Balmer being problem number one. Doesn't Google also do some form of
employee ranking? They seem to also have plenty of talent. Google though has
side stepped needing great management by being data focused to a fault. This
has made them better than MS in some ways, but worse in others.

 _So you're left with the middle - people who do their job reasonably well and
aren't dumb enough to take risks that might get them downgraded. Projects that
are in trouble can't be turned around because the best (remaining) people stay
away. And the people who couldn't get away find other jobs. I saw this happen
on a project at a financial company I worked for. They needed eight or ten
developers and went through at least twenty in the space of a year._

You're right that it's not always the best solution. First, a company needs to
be at the top of their field so they are attracting top talent. If Joe Bobs
software attempted stack ranking they are going to fail because they are not
the big leagues. No one goes to work there expecting it to be that way. People
who work at the Googles and MSs of the world expect that environment and are
rewarded well when they thrive.

At the end of the day, coming in at the bottom of one of the premier software
companies isn't necessarily a bad thing. I regret not trying to get a job at
one when I was younger just to see if I could hack it. At the time though my
priorities were different.

------
madrona
Somewhat off topic: what happened to Mini Microsoft? It seems like he/she was
intercepted and lobotomized by Microsoft PR. The open threads with wonderful
discussion (one of the best venues for talking across silos) habitually wither
from neglect from Mini. What's the next best place?

------
Xcelerate
9:00 PM? Is this what hard work is considered nowadays? Going home that late
everyday? Geez, I'd rather be called lazy.

~~~
kamaal
I've stayed at office for days.

Some people I know never went back home for a week.

At the year end appraisal. We were told we deserved nothing extra as we were
told that we were just doing our jobs.

That's how badly management can rip you off.

------
kamaal
Stack ranking is nor for everyone. Its a bit like making a awesome but a very
difficult dish. Its a kind of a dish which will taste horrible if don't get
the ingredients right to the very pinch.

For stack ranking to work you will need awesome leaders at the top rung in the
company. You will need to fight out politics, processes and eliminate
bureaucracy. You will also need a fair measuring of performance. Without all
of this you see managers awarding their yes-men(their pets and bootlickers
basically) top ranks and the good guys will leaving the organization.
Unfortunately its very easy to get into this mode, especially if you are a
large company will several layers of management- this kind of things can run
for years until irreversible damage is caused. The net result after years will
be false or irrelevant numbers floating in the company, while the best talent
has already left.

Even Jack Welch, mentions that stack ranking works best if everybody in the
organization is stack ranked all the way up to the CEO. So that if some one
cheats in the middle he will get ranked low under his manager and so on an so
forth. This is very different to what happens in most big corporates. Managers
are generally left immune to this process. The net result is they begin to
form gangs of yes-men around them. Whoever refuses to be a part of it, slips
out of favor of the manager and gets a bad ranking. Net result in mass is a
disaster. Which is not apparent until very late.

So if you are company with a culture of politics, processes, nepotism,
bureaucracy and biases. Stack ranking will not help, but rather destroy you.

I saw all this at a Mega Corp here in India. Needlessly to say that company
today is struggling fallen far below from its original glory days.

------
alttag
How does this affect the "contract employees"? I'm guessing they don't get the
bonuses, but do they get rated?

Microsoft still has a high rate of contractors (and I count some friends and
relatives among this number), although less since they got in trouble from the
federal government for not paying most types of benefits to contractors. [1]

1:
[http://archive.washtech.org/news/courts/display.php?ID_Conte...](http://archive.washtech.org/news/courts/display.php?ID_Content=381)

~~~
cek
Author here.

In my experience what this post discusses is completely irrelevant to contract
employees.

------
ricardobeat
Level 64?

~~~
brg
That's the second level for a "Senior" developer. The senior level band starts
at 63. Below that are 59 (college graduate) to 62, which are the bands of
Software Engineer and Software Engineer II. Above it are Principle (65-67) and
Partner levels.

~~~
danielweber
I was expecting the levels to be factors of 2. :(

------
KirinDave
I wonder what the stack ranking in MSR (the pure research arm of Microsoft)
looks like.

------
codeonfire
Ranking is designed to protect and benefit the people assigning the numbers.
The numbers are meaningless and should be called political ranking. Its ok to
work at one of these places short term if you need the cash, but have a plan
to move on soon.

------
michaelochurch
Stack-ranking is this idea that emerges when a bunch of bored, overpaid and
underemployed people of marginal intellect (that's being generous) watch a
terrorist attack on TV and decide, "It be funna' do that to, hurr hurr, a
comph-uh-ny!". The caretaker who wipes the shit off their mirrors every
morning reminds them that they have executive positions and can actually act
out their childish fantasies, so they do.

~~~
kamaal
I don't know why you are being down voted, because there is some truth in what
you say.

The point is so called senior managers and executives you see today in the
vast majority of the companies are totally undeserving of what they get. They
didn't make it to the top on merit. Most of them had it easy, they made it big
during gold rush in the IT boom. They were just there in the right place at
the right time.

Most of them if were to compete with even a average developer of our time,
will not last much longer.

------
codeonfire
I always found it amusing that Enron did stack ranking while at the same time
cooking it's books. They were just doing it to be assholes.

