Does every department at this forum have this type of ranking where you’re competing directly against each other? When people mention ‘stack ranking,’ is that what we have here (no minimum standards, just rankings based on who does better than others)? For anyone who’s left to work at other companies, are your metrics based on a minimum standard, or are you ranked against your peers?
We used to have clear goals for performance, but eventually, they realized that top performers would hit the daily target and then coast. Why push harder if you’re already ranked a ‘5’ for calls or whatever?
So, they switched to this system where there are no goals. You’re just competing against everyone else, and you don’t know where you stand. The idea is that everyone will work at their highest efficiency, but if you’re not working as hard as others, you might end up in the bottom 25% and be at risk for termination—even if you’re still doing the same amount of work that used to get you a good ranking.
This also means there’s no incentive to help your teammates. Why would I help someone who might then end up outperforming me? Helping them just makes me less productive.
And the whole ‘team environment’ thing is a joke. We’re not a team. We’re just individuals trying to survive.
It’s pure dystopian capitalism.
@Onyx
I was told I’m performing below expectations (bottom 25%) but there are no real expectations or goals… it doesn’t add up.
Bryn said:
@Onyx
I was told I’m performing below expectations (bottom 25%) but there are no real expectations or goals… it doesn’t add up.
They’ve created a situation where everyone is seen as a competitor. The silver lining is that if you’re good at one thing, focus on that and do it really well. Sometimes, focusing on just one metric can be enough to keep you out of the red zone.
Bryn said:
@Onyx
I was told I’m performing below expectations (bottom 25%) but there are no real expectations or goals… it doesn’t add up.
Just do the best you can, and this company can do whatever it wants.
Bryn said:
@Onyx
I was told I’m performing below expectations (bottom 25%) but there are no real expectations or goals… it doesn’t add up.
This could end up being a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Underwriting definitely uses this ranking system.
I worked at GEICO, and they were the only company where I saw this ranking system.
Zade said:
I worked at GEICO, and they were the only company where I saw this ranking system.
That system didn’t start until a few years ago. Todd Combs is a real piece of work. No one is going to miss him when he’s gone.
In ICS, we have stack ranking too, and I don’t know of anyone who has minimum standards.
I left G last year. My new company doesn’t use rankings. We only focus on individual performance. I work at Snapsheet now, where we measure productivity by how much work you complete in an 8-hour day. If you meet expectations, you get a raise. If you’re below that, I don’t really know what happens, but there’s no ‘Hunger Games’ here. I hated it at G when they started that system, even though I was one of the top performers.
@Cameron
If ‘meets expectations’ doesn’t get a raise, then I’ve decided I’ll just do the bare minimum.
Fraser said:
@Cameron
If ‘meets expectations’ doesn’t get a raise, then I’ve decided I’ll just do the bare minimum.
I think what they’re saying is that if you meet or exceed expectations, you get a raise.
@Zaren
Well, I’ll believe it when I see it on my paycheck.
SIU also uses the ranking system.
This Hunger Games style ranking can’t last forever because there will always be a bottom quartile. If you keep firing the bottom 25% every quarter, you’ll run out of employees. You can’t hire fast enough to replace them. Even if you could, hiring people is expensive.
@Harlem
You don’t run out of employees if you just hire entry-level people at a lower cost.
Tamsin said:
@Harlem
You don’t run out of employees if you just hire entry-level people at a lower cost.
But hiring is expensive. You have to pay people during their training, and with poor training, they’re not productive for months.
@Harlem
The company doesn’t care about that. They’re focused on minimizing costs, and salary is the biggest expense.
Tamsin said:
@Harlem
The company doesn’t care about that. They’re focused on minimizing costs, and salary is the biggest expense.
Exactly. Experienced employees are more expensive, with all the benefits they get, and now that profit sharing is gone.