In case you’re not familiar with it, stacked ranking is essentially
the practice of ranking
employees along a bell curve. Some employers use the
rankings to openly compare workers’ performance (primarily as a way to motive
those at the lower end of the curve to do better), while others actually use
the rankings to fire underperforming employees.
BusinessWeek ran a story
last month about Yahoo’s adoption of stacked ranking. Notably, it had this to
say: “The Institute of Corporate Productivity says the number of companies
using either a forced ranking system or some softer facsimile is down
significantly from previous years. Companies performing well were less likely
to be using forced ranking systems than those that weren’t. Just over 5 percent
of high-performing companies used a forced ranking system in 2011, down from
almost 20 percent two years earlier.”
In our experience, stacked ranking is most commonly used by
enterprise-sized companies—those with seriously large employee populations. While
this might make sense to some degree, we would never recommend stacked ranking to any employer, no matter how
large its workforce is. The reason? The practice can easily become misleading, unfair
and demotivating. Equally important, it can stretch out the review process unnecessarily.
Under stacked ranking, a manager is able to give a
particular ranking to only a limited number/percentage of employees. (For
example, only about 10 percent or so of a group can be ranked as “top
performers,” and so on down the line including a specified percentage who must
be ranked as “poor performers.”) Once the manager has dispensed the total
allotment of a particular ranking, she/he must give all other employees a
different ranking—even when these employees deserve to be put into the
already-filled ranking. Managers often find it an arduous and time-consuming
exercise to carefully work through the problems this system causes and
distribute employee rankings as fairly as possible.
In addition, stacked ranking can be demotivating to
employees. Example: using a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being poor and 5 being
excellent), manager Jane rates employee Dave a 3. Dave deserved to be rated a 4
but all of the 4s were already handed out. Jane explains this to Dave and sends
him on his way, thanking him for his performance. How do you think this is
going to sit with Dave? Maybe he’ll trot back to his desk happy, engaged and
motivated to do even better … but we wouldn’t bet on it.
Bottom line, employees should be rated according to their
merits—not according to a predetermined scale or a set of forced categories.
In other words, for truly performance-driven companies,
stacked ranking simply doesn’t stack up.








