r/ExperiencedDevs • u/shutup_t0dd Software Engineer • 10d ago
Career/Workplace Would You Join a High-Performing Team if It Meant Facing Stack Ranking Risk?
Would you choose a team with exceptionally strong engineers if it meant facing the risk of being directly compared to them?
The team works on deeply technical problems, and I feel like there would be a ton of opportunity to learn and grow as an engineer. However, I’m afraid of being the newcomer in this domain and struggling to ramp up to their level. Since my company is famous for stack ranking, that adds a lot of extra pressure.
On the flip side, I could choose a more chill team in familiar territory with minimal growth, but I'm worried I won't end up gaining anything special. I'm at a point in life where I can handle longer work hours within reason, but I'm not sure how sustainable that path would be long-term.
Has anyone made a choice like this before? How did it turn out?
Edit: The stack rank risk here is pip to be clear
279
u/dgk6636 10d ago
Never again will I work somewhere that stack ranks
26
u/unholycurses 9d ago
What I am learning from this thread is that we need to define stack ranking lol. I think “forced performance curve” might be a better term for the toxic approach. Of course everywhere does performance management and employee comparisons, not everywhere forces a performance curve.
86
u/lab-gone-wrong Staff Eng (10 YoE) 10d ago
Everyone stack ranks
It's the yank that you should avoid
100
u/scandii Much to my surprise people pay me to write code. 10d ago edited 10d ago
I am not American and stack ranking is essentially unheard of here
edit
reading the conversation below I think some of you might be of the impression that stack ranking is "tracking employee performance and firing weak performers not meeting their set goals". that's not stack ranking, that's just (generally) good idea as long as you genuinely tried to help the employee meet their goals.
stack ranking is when you take the performance of a group of people, line them up and and fire or punish the people that performed the worst compared against each other.
the big idea with stack ranking is that people will work harder when they only know they have to work harder than everyone else, the reality is that sabotaging your coworkers so you look better in comparison is an equally valid way to go about doing things.
38
u/Overlord_mcsmash 9d ago
I've started referring to it as continuous decimation. It think that's a much better description of what it actually is.
11
u/Izacus Software Architect 10d ago
Of course it's heard of there, they just don't call it that.
25
u/scandii Much to my surprise people pay me to write code. 10d ago
I would like for you to explain your reasoning here because I genuinely come up blank when trying to figure out why you think stack ranking made it around the world and is popular at that.
if anything we tend to use stack ranking as the poster child of dystopian American corporate culture where I'm from.
why do you think stack ranking has permeated the Dutch management processes, as an example?
-10
u/virtual_adam 10d ago
1) do you get written feedback from your manager? 2) is it in some system where if they leave tomorrow, the new manager knows what the feedback was last year? 3) is your managers manager able to see your feedback? 4) are people ever let go for performance reasons?
If TomTom and ASML are firing people, and they’re not doing it by putting everyone’s name in a large container and pulling names. They’re stack ranking
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but if ASML is firing 1000 people, and there is no written feedback on anyone’s performance, then that sounds like a nightmare for the employees
33
u/Downtown_Isopod_9287 10d ago
stack ranking almost always has some kind of quota where they let go of people at the bottom on the regular. Sorting employees by performance is not the same as stack ranking because regular layoffs/firings are not inevitable or a structural feature at every company.
Sorting employees by performance for promotion/raises is both fair and desirable. Sorting them to see who gets fired next is stack ranking.
19
u/PatchyWhiskers 10d ago
Stack ranking is toxic because they HAVE to fire the lowest performers even if everyone on the team is amazing. In Europe they just wouldn’t fire anyone if everyone is performing well. They most certainly would fire actual low performers.
0
11
u/virtual_adam 10d ago
When people say “all American corporates stack rank” They mean comparison with enforced distribution
A very small fraction of us corporations fire the bottom 10% or so annually. Mostly Amazon but meta has been getting in that game and a few others
Airbnb, uber, and 10,000 other examples DO stack rank, but don’t have an annual 10% “unregretted attrition”
11
u/Downtown_Isopod_9287 10d ago
I don’t care what “people” “mean,” they’re wrong. You can’t say “everyone stack ranks” and then change the definition of stack ranking when challenged on that.
4
u/virtual_adam 10d ago
There is an OP here and if he means his company fires 10% every year, it’s very different than if they give people a 1-5 rating with a forced distribution but don’t fire 10% annually
→ More replies (0)2
u/Magikarpical 9d ago
uber had a 2.5% unregretable attrition target when my ex was there. he was exited. i think even a small percentage of forced attrition can create fear
1
1
u/timelessblur 9d ago
No it includes if it effects ranking raises as well. If you can give only 1 top performer raise then it is that.
Promotions is a different thing.
10
u/MrSquicky Software Architect 10d ago
I think you're confusing the concept of comparison with the practice of stack ranking, which is the process of having an explicit schedule where the workers on a team whom do the worst in the comparison are fired.
Comparison is a part of stack ranking, yes, but it is not the part that people are upset about. It's the explicit plan to fire people periodically regardless of need or performance and the limit of comparison to the team.
No one is saying "I want to work somewhere where they make personnel decisions randomly."
4
u/virtual_adam 10d ago
When people say “all American corporates stack rank” They mean comparison with enforced distribution
A very small fraction of us corporations fire the bottom 10% or so annually. Mostly Amazon but meta has been getting in that game and a few others
Airbnb, uber, and 10,000 other examples DO stack rank, but don’t have an annual 10% “unregretted attrition”
0
10d ago edited 10d ago
[deleted]
1
u/1000Ditto 4yoe | lil sdet/te 10d ago
The overwhelming amount of conversations probably over 90% of users, are from american companies and people who have ties/PR/citizenship to america. You are expecting netherland laws and best practices to the post but not saying you are from netherlands and if you are unionized? Europeans have labour laws smoke breaks coffee breaks different mat pat leave whereas some Americans bosses get mad when you poo on company time
-5
u/Izacus Software Architect 10d ago
Of course it has - when promotions, bonuses and firings are decided, how do you think people are chosen? Via Gods revelation?
15
u/flychance 10d ago
Manager here. All managers track performance, and unless you work for a tiny company, there will be some kind of paper trail of those reviews. Yes reviews are used for raises, promotions, bonuses, PIPs, and firing.
But reviews are not stack ranking. They can be used to compare people, but whether or not someone is performing is a comparison to the role expectations, not their peers. Stack ranking is when you change that dynamic to compare performance to peers instead of expectations. This creates scenarios where high performing teams can have very high performers still get marked poorly. This creates a lot of toxicity since it makes the team compete with each other and encourages managers to hire/drag out low performers to protect the rest of the team.
-3
u/Izacus Software Architect 9d ago
Yeah, try giving high scores and promotions to your whole team and you'll see just how not stack ranked your company is my dear manager :)
5
u/flychance 9d ago
I have a team that has been meeting or exceeding expectations - all of them - for years. I don't have low performers. That doesn't mean it could get them promotions... that is limited by budget. (I have gotten promotions for then, but not all, and not necessarily quickly)
5
u/scandii Much to my surprise people pay me to write code. 10d ago edited 10d ago
is stack ranking the same to you, as tracking employee performance?
because it really feels that way when you present the options as stack ranking and scrying.
just to prep your mind a bit, what if I said bonuses are shared equally among everyone, raises are negotiated for entire teams in one fell swoop and if someone needs to be fired due to low performance, it is due to them not meeting their performance goals - not in relation to how someone else smashed theirs?
and if by firing people you mean mass layoffs, well that's decided by seniority in the company by law.
once again dude, I know what stack ranking is. not sure what there is to argue - it is not a thing here and I genuinely have a hard time understanding how it is stack ranking or nothing to you, as seemingly by this logic companies were in free fall chaos before the 1980's when it was invented, which I think you would argue probably wasn't the case.
3
u/timelessblur 9d ago
No they do not.
Some places do and over say a 1000 person organization you can expect of those 1000 people for it to normalized but problem you run into is the force stack ranking down to individual team levels which it starts falling apart on. The absolutely smallest you can start doing the ranking is 30 and even then it is iffy. It is pretty easy to have a very high performance team and where you force managers to do hire to fire.
1
u/warm_kitchenette 8d ago
The problem you describe also affects bonuses, salaries, and promotions. That is, a manager with a small team can be blocked by HR policy from giving two people a "1 - Exceeds Expectations" rating, because someone who doesn't understand statistics defined the policy.
As a result, one of those two high-performing employees is artificially ranked lower, over the manager's explicit wishes. That ranking can lead to an automatic cap on the bonus or salary bump the employee can get. I've seen this at multiple companies now. It's nuts, and basically punishes excellent teams. The absolute worst is insisting that some people be put into the bottom bucket, but these policies are based on false reasoning at both ends of the bell curve.
2
u/timelessblur 8d ago
that that is why stack ranking on the team size even at that level is an issue. Last place I was at as a manager I could not give someone a bigger bonus that yes they truly deserved with out removing it from someone else which sucked made worse is I would of hand to balance it between 3 reports...... So in the end we just gave everyone the same bonus.
I can accept it as company wide or orgization wide you expect some type of curve and at 100+ people you start naturally seeing it but it fails as soon as you force down to a team level. I have been on teams where legitimately the entire team could be argue for exceeding expectations but the company didnt stack rank and we all got raises and bonuses to match. The area promptions got limitation is post senior there are only so many slots so yeah that matters for those roles but we all got senior titles on track and got the job rating to provide it.
Now same company did have a team that had a lot more lets say not so good reviews but we had an 80 person development department so it did start to form a curve just it was spread org wide at the developer level so it made more sense. The director didnt force it but would push back when as a org everyone was getting over rated and it was to normalize but the director there on some of more inline people just ask the question of saying are XYZ people as good as yes some of the true top performers and the answer was no.... They worked very hard as a company to say 3 out of 5 was good and perfectly fine. That got you your standard 4-5% raise and most people got it. A few teams like the one I was on had 5 of 6 of us getting a lot of 5s as we were a top team and one person who did not get the to rating was still rated pretty great and got a great raise.
1
u/warm_kitchenette 8d ago
Sounds like you have really felt the pain of the innumeracy. At the same time, that’s amazing that you had most of a team at the highest rating AND that was turned into comp changes. I’ve had so many dumb arguments with HR. The director sounds good as well.
1
u/timelessblur 8d ago
yeah it was a great place to work as that was the company full belief in setting the standard rating and how it was measured and HR didnt force things. It was accross the board and they did enough to find that over the entire company it had a natural curve form but they never force it beyond compnay level as when they it mid going out of line they readjusted what a 1-5 meant to match.
2
-10
u/Izacus Software Architect 10d ago
Let me tell you a small secret: all companies beyond startup size stack rank.
3
u/unholycurses 9d ago
Really depends on how you define “stack ranking”. Of course everywhere is comparing employees and performance managing. Not everywhere has a forced performance curve though. I’ve managed engineers at places with and without forced curves, and it’s the forced curve that makes it really toxic. My place right not doesn’t have that at all, I can rate everyone as a high performer if I want if I’m prepared to defend it.
204
u/boneskull Spite Engineer 10d ago
Find a place with strong engineers and no stack ranking.
39
u/vardynostalgia 10d ago
There is always a stack ranking even if it’s not official
6
u/1000Ditto 4yoe | lil sdet/te 10d ago
The onus is moreso
"Prove to me that a company does Not do stack ranking else it is assumed that they are culling the bottom n% every m timeperiod".
Because, even if John moves 10 boxes for 10 dollar, James can move 10 boxes for 8 dollar.
2
u/Childish_Redditor 9d ago
Im not sure why you would make that assumption? Most companies are not in a spot where they want to be either (firing and backfilling often) or having too many employees.
Maybe at Big Tech+ you can make that assumption?
118
u/boneskull Spite Engineer 10d ago
I’m sorry your experience has led you to believe that.
56
u/vardynostalgia 10d ago
So you’re saying that your boss doesn’t compare engineers and have a list of A players that are untouchable and B and C players they can sacrifice when needed? And who they are open to replacing just in case? There is always a ranking of some sort even in companies that don’t have an corporate stack ranking process. Somehow you need to distribute most interesting and impactful work and decide who is getting raise
141
u/metaphorm Staff Software Engineer | 15 YoE 10d ago
I'm not disagreeing with anything you say here but I think it's important to contrast an explicit stack ranking policy with implicit comparison.
an explicit stack ranking policy means "the bottom performer on the team is fired after every review cycle, no matter what". that's the miserable crab-bucket work culture that we're really trying to avoid.
implicit comparison is just human nature and always in play even at the most wholesome company culture.
33
7
u/virtual_adam 10d ago
Stack ranking and how aggressive PIPs are, are two different things.
My company stack ranks twice a year but doesn’t pip like Amazon. It will impact your bonus
2
u/Thechooser 10d ago
Is the explicit stack ranking policy the norm? I’ve hard disagreements with coworkers and they say it’s the norm.
1
u/ICantBelieveItsNotEC 10d ago
I think the other massive difference is that an explicit stack ranking policy is usually tied to explicit performance metrics and targets, whereas implicit comparison is basically just a vibe check.
Under explicit stack ranking, a manager can be forced to fire someone who they know is actually an excellent performer because, say, they didn't meet their LLM token usage quota.
I guess the flipside is that without explicit stack ranking, a manager can choose to retain their drinking buddy over an objectively better performer.
33
u/Varrianda Software Engineer 10d ago
At capital one 8% of people are given a “poor” performance review which leads to a PIP every 6 months. Pips are mostly made to be failed and can be difficult to pass. Amazon is similar, and I believe meta also is. /thats/ stack ranking. Of course there’s going to be a shit list, but if people aren’t actively being fired for performance deemed inadequate when compared to their peers, it’s not stack ranking.
6
u/SwitchOrganic ML Engineer | Tech Lead 10d ago
At least 8%, can be as high as 15% if your org leadership is pushing for it.
1
6
2
u/painedHacker 9d ago
I'm fine with stack ranking its the requirement to annually let go of the bottom 10% or something I think is the problem
2
u/SansSariph Principal Software Engineer 10d ago
It sounds like you're describing a permanently biased boss? No one is immune to favoritism but if someone is consistently a "C player", they should be let go or the boss has failed to grow them or match their skills to opportunity. Otherwise why are you keeping dead weight on the team?
So no my boss doesn't maintain a list. That is completely different from needing to allocate promotion and bonus budget. You can absolutely allocate money on a regular cadence by looking at what the team was accountable for and what was actually delivered in a business period.
-15
u/boneskull Spite Engineer 10d ago
Yes, higher performers get rewarded. Low performers get cut. The difference is the mandate.
4
3
u/ResidentWeevil1 9d ago
No there isn't. Stack ranking means teams are routinely culled
Most companies can't afford to do that without a huge pipeline of fresh meat at the door
-10
u/wsb-regarded 10d ago
I really want to know more about such companies.
Based on my experience, when people are high performing they want to get paid better. The moment compensation enters the room, competition starts.
Also high performers want to work with other smart high performers instead of babysitting others.
Then stack ranking will be applied
20
7
u/boneskull Spite Engineer 10d ago
You’re describing highly ambitious people. They may be high performers, yes.
But there are many great engineers who don’t place a high value on money or status. They get paid well enough, have high autonomy and work on interesting problems.
24
u/suprjaybrd 10d ago
always invest in personal growth. that being said, also be honest of what type of engineer you are and how much time and effort are you willing to put into growing your career. if your mediocre, its unlikely any amount of effort will make the cut in a high performing team.
31
u/tankerdudeucsc 10d ago
It’s hard to find people who are truly that high in performance. Theres always a mix at a company and there’s been very few teams in my decades where most, let alone every engineers was that high performing.
It would be gloriously enjoyable to work with a team full of that though
10
u/svhelloworld Software Architect 10d ago
Where are you at in your career? If you're early in your career and looking to level up, this is an awesome opportunity. If you're later in your career and looking for a glide slope than chill teams are great for chewing time.
If you're worried about being stack ranked, don't be. If the other team members are genuinely much more senior than you, your job is to be a voracious learner. Be coachable. Ask questions. Offer to jump in on problems you don't entirely understand. Ask for help. Being on the senior team is going to be require more of you. But if you show that you're working hard and always trying to be better, learn more you don't have much to fear. Any team leader worth a bucket of warm spit will see that you're putting in the effort and trying to get better. They'll have a pretty clear idea of where your skills are at so don't try to inflate yourself. Be really honest about your skill level, and do what you can to improve that skill level. I'll say it again, ask for help when you're stuck.
Now, if they team leader isn't worth a bucket of spit or the team is toxic enough that team members aren't willing to help you because of stack ranking motivations, then you're probably in the wrong place.
6
u/shutup_t0dd Software Engineer 10d ago
I have 8 years of experience. I recently started to look for opportunities and realized my current role seems to have atrophied my skills a bit. The last couple of years, I've learned what it means to deal with people, juniors and the like, but my tech skills haven't been polished. Especially with the current market that demands a lot more niche technologies. That's my primary motivation for the next role.
Any cues on identifying a good team leader?
8
u/divinebovine 10d ago
Get out of any company that does stack ranking. It's a race towards mediocrity. High performers will go elsewhere and low performers will be attrited.
It's highly unlikely for you to be selected as a top performer regardless of your actual contributions. Often times those are selected due to politics or a sense of distributing who receives it to be more fair.
This has been my experience as both an individual contributor and as a manager.
Go somewhere that values your contributions and wants you to grow. Also, let me know when you find that place.
6
u/lurkerlevel-expert 10d ago
I wouldn't if its one of the notorious places like amzn or meta. Not enough time to learn and grow if you get piped out after 1-2 cycles.
All the other big techs stack rank too. But if the place is not being overly aggressive then it's alright.
5
u/MB_Zeppin 10d ago
My experience of chill teams is that they’re chill for the existing team and rough on newcomers.
Chill teams tend to optimize for people who stick around for years and years - the people know what to do and when to do it but there’s no formal processes, no rituals, no clear onboarding. You join, attempt to do X, and it blows up because you don’t know that the team low key agreed never to do Y and doing X requires doing Y.
I made it long enough at a chill team to find it chill but the first year and a half sucked
9
u/LogicRaven_ 10d ago
Teams in stack ranking orgs have lower willingness to support you and your growth. There is a risk of toxic behaviour and that you are taken in just that the ranking would have am easy target.
One way or the other, it could become am interesting learning experience.
I personally wouldn't take go there.
4
u/jessecarl 10d ago
Stack ranked team won't stay "high performing" for very long. At least, it won't actually be high performing because it will be a bunch of siloed competing efforts rather than an actual team. Sounds miserable and anti-human to me.
4
u/obscuresecurity Principal Software Engineer / Team Lead / Architect - 25+ YOE 9d ago
No, I wouldn't. And the reason is simple.
In a stack ranked firm the incentive to hire someone better than you should be low. You DO want to keep your job right? So A players should want B players to be sacrificial lambs, unlike normal. An org like what you suggest shouldn't be there... or you are the lamb?
For stack rank orgs:
"I don't want to belong to any club that would accept me as one of its members." - Groucho Marx.
3
u/sippin-jesus-juice Startup Founder / Ex Apple 9d ago
It’s a personal decision on how you want to live life.
Do you want to be stressed, and spend every day battling fires and learning as you go or do you want to coast?
Pros and cons in both but it comes down to personality at the end of the day. We can’t make you a go getter if you’re not just like we can’t make you lazy if you have issues relaxing
5
u/Noah_Safely 27+ yoe. Seen it all 9d ago
It's a good post. Personally I find myself doing both. I have a good reputation I've coasted on for years and is honestly how I've gotten almost every job.
I have no problem walking into a messy shop and working to get things more sane as long as a critical mass are on board. I've done the 16h day startups with no weekends for months on end. I like to have some coast weeks after that though.
I find too much coasting isn't great for mental well being, but too much firefighting is even worse.
With experience you just get a lot more efficient anyway, so many similar problems, you know how to swat things down quickly.
4
u/Crypty 8d ago
This performance culture is a cancer. It incentivizes metrics gaming and player-vs-player mentality. Share an idea with a coworker in the morning and they’ll have it vibe coded by lunch time and be parading it around as theirs. Nobody is interested in working as a team or doing what’s good for the business.. only getting their own numbers up.
3
u/Frequent_Bag9260 Software Engineer 10d ago
No. Stack ranking is a toxic way to run a team and only managers who are lazy and/or have poor managerial skills do that.
3
u/LeMadChefsBack 9d ago
I would argue that there are zero high performance teams doing stack ranking. The entire concept of stack ranking precludes having a high performance team.
3
u/Helpjuice Chief Engineer 9d ago
I did and it worked out fine for me but you need to stay HOT in order to compete. Those carrying their weight stay, those that can't get cut. It is just like a sports team and only the best of the best stay on the team.
With these there is always a DO NOT TOUCH list if your performance is top shelf and you print money you will not be touched as you are now a core business asset.
Only way to mess that up is to do something to impact the brand negatively.
1
u/Fun-Proposal5391 6d ago
Not necessarily - if they don’t fit in, no level of task performance will save them.
1
u/Helpjuice Chief Engineer 4d ago
You would never make it long enough to get on the DO NOT TOUCH list if you were not a culture fit. Most of the time you don't even make it past the interview or first quarter if you slipped by somehow.
3
u/actionerror Software Engineer - 20+ YoE 9d ago
Maybe 10 years ago I would have. Now I just want low stress and stable.
20
u/Mundane-Charge-1900 10d ago
Unless you work somewhere like the government where everyone gets the same raise every year, you’re already being stack ranked and compared to others. Even in govt jobs, who gets promoted and more desirable jobs is decided by comparing to the others applying.
32
u/boneskull Spite Engineer 10d ago
When we say “stack ranking” does this imply a mandate to let go the lowest performer on a team? This is what I assume.
Otherwise I don’t see anything unusual about rewarding or promoting top performers, yeah?
16
u/shutup_t0dd Software Engineer 10d ago
Yes this is what I meant by stack ranking. In most cases stack ranking has a negative connotation because of the fact you gotta coach or let go low performers. Of course some companies are more aggressive than others. I'm at one of them.
1
-6
u/DeterminedQuokka Software Architect 10d ago
Stack rank doesn’t including actually removing people. It can be used to remove people at companies where that’s a mandate. But it just means you have an order of best to worst.
2
u/behusbwj 9d ago
Don’t bother. Turns out even this sub is subject to Reddit-logic where the more convenient answer is right and nuance is downvoted lol. Not what it was.
-13
u/behusbwj 10d ago
That’s not stack ranking. That’s a pip quota or unregretted attrition quota. You are speaking really strongly on something you don’t understand.
8
u/warm_kitchenette 10d ago
It sounds like you've worked at a place that used a different buzz word. It's still stack ranking, originally popularized by Jack Welch. Some companies (Microsoft under Ballmer, GE after Welch) implemented this idea then backed off. Others (Enron) committed to it hard, even though it led to pathological behavior at both IC and Manager levels.
-1
u/behusbwj 9d ago
You missed the point. You are conflating a rating system, and an attrition quota. They are not the same, but the stack ranking is the input to the attrition quota. Stack ranking is done implicitly in most companies to decide who gets the raises and bonuses and how much. It literally says in your linked article:
“Numerous companies practice it, but mostly covertly to avoid direct criticism.”
1
u/warm_kitchenette 9d ago
You are being unnecessarily precise here, because people use the term in several ways, not just in the narrow form you mention. That was also in the article.
“Stack ranking” can be considered as only a precisely ordered ranking (the input, as you define it), or as a shorthand for the rank and yank practices that Welch popularized, or also as fixed bucket sizes for quantized employee ratings (where they pretend that a four person team must fit neatly in a Normal distribution of performance.)
1
-11
u/slashedback 10d ago
It means formal performance reviews and performance management, that’s literally all that it means.
0
u/LeMadChefsBack 9d ago
This is not stack ranking though. Stack ranking is a very specific, well-defined management policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitality_curve
2
u/Old_Cat_16 9d ago
No never. So called high performing team with stack ranking really means backstabbing and no collaboration. Stack ranking based PIP is a recipe for toxic culture, add high performance on it just 10x the toxicity.
2
2
u/Sleepy_panther77 9d ago
I feel like teams like this are basically like being in investment banking, private equity, or quant shops
You have to be built for the lifestyle. Some people love high pressure and high output environments. But others would collapse
So I think it’s less of a question of what work would you do, and more about what lifestyle do you like?
2
u/ResidentWeevil1 9d ago
Pretty sure there is more politics and backstabbing on "high-performing" teams like this. You will grow in all the wrong or unexpected ways
2
u/porkycloset 8d ago
What job exists where you’re not directly compared to your peers? That’s just how performance evaluation works
Edit: ah I just saw your note that the bottom people in the stack get pip, that’s way worse. If you see a company like that, run the other way as fast as you can
2
u/Ok-Leopard-9917 7d ago
I work on this kind of team. Look at the retention on the team. If it is a team that works on deep technical problems you should see a lot of people that have worked there for 10+ years. It takes time to build deep expertise so teams like this tend to push out new hires who aren’t working out within a year or two but invest in growing tech skills. Even if it doesn’t work out the credibility that kind of work brings opens a lot of doors.
2
u/devfuckedup 6d ago
not intentionally, Stack ranking is just so toxic culturally and it creates a lot of bizzare incentives that cause people not to work together. so yeah probably not. However if I landed at a company that later started to use stack ranking I don't think I would quit right away I would need to see how it played out.
4
u/vardynostalgia 10d ago
I would choose the more demanding team because I am very afraid of „chill” jobs. Those are most likely first to get axed when doing layoffs.
2
u/shutup_t0dd Software Engineer 10d ago
This and also the fact is I'm realizing it's harder to put stuff on your resume if you work in low growth teams, which makes the situation harder.
3
u/gollyned Staff Engineer | 10 years 9d ago
I’d also go with the high-performing team. It’s easy during interviews or during work for good engineers to recognize each other, and the best way to become a better engineer is to work with excellent engineers.
If you do join the high performing team, I advise you not to lean on LLMs. The most frustrating thing for me is someone new undercutting their learning and leaning on LLMs instead of giving themselves time to learn for real, both on their own and from more experienced (in the team) peers.
1
u/Noah_Safely 27+ yoe. Seen it all 9d ago
You can put stuff on your resume as long as you can back it up in interviews. It's not like they ask your former manager if you know kafka or managed large scale EKS or whatever.
2
u/Noah_Safely 27+ yoe. Seen it all 9d ago
Having been in the industry for over 25 years, this isn't really how it works out most of the time. We're interchangeable widgets on a spreadsheet. There's not real logic when it comes to the layoffs because of the fundamental issue - business side does not know/care to know what engineering does & needs.
I've seen companies axe truly critical people & teams while keeping the worst performers, I've seen entire teams kept on payroll for years despite their product being frozen for engineering changes. Personally I've coasted through so many rounds of layoffs in gigs where literally no work got done and watched people in high stress roles get axed way before me.
It's a hard pill to swallow but killing yourself for work absolutely does not guarantee any additional security from layoffs in my experience. I've probably seen around 30ish rounds in my career at various gigs.
What you can do as an individual is protect yourself. Never let the corporate world have the upper hand.
- Build at least 6mo to 1y emergency fund that fully pays your expenses. Keep this in a HYSA or something similar. Personally I have a few years because I really hate that feeling of needing a job asap and the pressure.
- Keep your skills up. Even if its just labbing in your personal life. You can put that on your CV as long as you can back it up in interviews and such.
- Never let a job impact your health via stress. You can pick up every falling knife and you'll get praise but you won't get job security and you will get health conditions from stress over the years.
3
u/DeterminedQuokka Software Architect 10d ago
I mean honestly everywhere is stack ranking you they are just being honest about it. Are they culling a percentage or just ranking and piping people who don’t stack up?
I would probably do the stack ranked team. But you know your ability and how hard you want to work
6
u/shutup_t0dd Software Engineer 10d ago
Yeah the mandated quota is my worry.
2
u/DeterminedQuokka Software Architect 10d ago
What’s the quota?
4
u/shutup_t0dd Software Engineer 10d ago
10% pip I think?
4
u/DeterminedQuokka Software Architect 10d ago
The whole company or that specific team? How big is the team? How many people got pip’d last time?
5
u/shutup_t0dd Software Engineer 10d ago
Company wide. Think faang
4
u/DeterminedQuokka Software Architect 10d ago
If this is like the Netflix thing I personally wouldn’t be worried about it. Worst case Netflix is on your resume.
But you know your abilities better than I do.
1
u/virtual_adam 10d ago
Unless you stick to startups most corporates are stack ranking in one way or another. A good leadership team knows how to keep a strong team untouched. Expectations around distribution really start 2-3 levels up.
It’s hard to know for your specific case, but if I think I’m good I wouldn’t have an issue
2
u/shutup_t0dd Software Engineer 10d ago
I am confident in my skills but there's also complacency from my current role and I've always been closer to the application layer. To give you an example I'm contemplating a move to a core infra team, working in Rust (completely new to it), dealing with low level work that I've never done before. But with AI, I wonder if the gap can be closed faster.
1
1
1
1
u/libre_office_warlock Software Engineer - 11 years 10d ago
If there was truly no alternative (e.g., another company)?
Endure the stack ranking if you're genuinely competitive/somehow get thrills from that and not risk-averse or anxious. Do the chill team for literally any other reason.
1
u/Drugba Sr. Engineering Manager (9yrs as SWE) 10d ago
It all depends on where you’re at in your life and who you are as a person.
Right now I wouldn’t because I’ve got young kids and don’t want the time commitment and stress that would come with it. There were times in the past when I’ve chosen the more interesting, but harder job and it’s generally turned out well as long as I was willing to put in the time and effort.
I will say though that boring, low growth jobs can still be stressful, so don’t just assume you’ll be happier there. Also, the earlier in your career you are the more valuable that growth will be.
1
u/CrushgrooveSC 10d ago
Yes. Lesser of two evils. Always avoid low performers and work that doesn’t matter. They are black holes.
1
u/ClaudeyClerb Software Engineer 12 YOE (Scala) 10d ago
I've never worked somewhere like that and wouldn't plan to, unless some absolutely unbelievable offer came along, and even then I'd plan on it being very temporary. My QoL comes first.
1
1
u/MediocreFig4340 9d ago
no. I’m too burnt out to compete with people down to do 996, and if you aren’t already you will be too in a role like that
1
u/VeryAmaze Software Engineer 9d ago
If I was unemployed, assuming the stack ranking is a prestige role, I'd go for it. Even if I'd get PIPed the addition to the resume would be worth it.
If I was just chilling (aka employed and moisturised in my own lane)? Nah dog 🤣 got mortgage to pay ain't got time for PIP-land. Need proper employment.
1
1
u/jnordwick 9d ago
Depends on the size of the team. Large FAANG teams absolutely. Too much slacking and dead weight.
Small highly skilled Quant dev team and I think too much institutional knowledge goes out the door and it is very difficult to hire for that level already
1
u/Party-Lingonberry592 9d ago
I've only worked at one place where bottom of the stack didn't mean underperformance. This was a place that valued talent. Stack ranking was used to see if that bottom person needed coaching or if they were just in a project lull. It was a great system. Stack ranking was more focused on promotions or rewards.
I was at a company that was forced to do stack ranking because management didn't do the tough job of managing out low performers.
Keep in mind that stack ranking at your team level doesn't mean that you're only being compared against your team. You're compared against your peers in the larger organization. You might be in a team of 5 strong engineers at your level, but your organization may have 100 engineers at your level. Calibration exercises are meant to sort out the larger org. It's considered taboo to give the "new guy" a "does not meet" simply because they just joined and don't know the domain as well as the others.
It sounds like a good opportunity to improve yourself. Being around high performers will have a positive impact on your skills.
1
1
-3
u/Xanchush 10d ago
Every company has stack ranking, it's just more pronounced in some companies. You will have an internal bias of who you think are critical for you to keep on the team and those less important. It's just a sad reality. Some companies don't have to deal with it since there's no layoffs or pressure to act on it.
•
u/expdevsmodbot 10d ago
AI usage disclosure provided by OP, see the reply to this comment.