Don't let this Tweet get lost in the shuffle.
View: https://twitter.com/BrianBirming/status/1617688557367488512?s=20&t=xzHxosnJG4hXwKRn1XEhIA
View: https://twitter.com/BrianBirming/status/1617688557367488512?s=20&t=xzHxosnJG4hXwKRn1XEhIA
[Bloomberg] Blizzard Manager Departs In Protest of Employee Ranking System (UPDATE: Manager responds)
- Thread starter Fieran
- Start date
- Activision/Blizzard
Somebody else from Brian's team reached out to Bloomberg in the first place, and since Brian was fired they couldn't contact him via his work email or phone. My guess would be that whoever leaked the story tried to provide Brian's contact info and it wasn't correct, or Bloomberg tried to reach out on some publically available profile (like LinkedIn) and Brian just hasn't seen it yet. I don't see any reason Bloomberg would lie about this when a simple mistake or crossed wire is perfectly probable.
omg that is exactly like it is at my work. This year was fucked. Made me instantly give 2 effort while I look for a new job
Other posts in this thread have already proven that wrong but even if they hadn't, why would that be relevant? Ybarra worked at Microsoft for 20 years, that's clearly where he got it.
While not entirely the same...the way Retail works to hit metrics (% of orders picked on time, % orders packed on time, % items pulled from the back room etc) regardless of what everyone needs to go through and what falls to the side in order to meet those metrics is absolutely hot garbage. As far as I know we never had quotas, but I also didn't have enough direct reports to be able to have percentages like that.
There's no middle ground between tier 2 and 3 stating that you either had important outcomes or you need significant improvement. Having "exceptional" outcomes takes an obscene amount of work (not just flawless metrics but going way over other metrics) but also a TON of support from your boss or you get stuck in that middle bracket with a 20-40 cent raise. I can only imagine how terrible the burnout and turnover would be if people were unceremoniously thrown into "You suck" categories just because they "didn't have any more space" in the "You're alright I guess, here's a quarter" category.
The manager heard and suspects that it comes from above Ybarra so why are you pinning it on ybarra lol
Just had my first yearly performance review and its 0-5 and he had to explain before telling me it was a 3 that 3/5 means they've seen improvement in the last year, cuz it made people upset to get a 3/5.
Obviously, then you're never giving 5's if a 3 is better than the year before.
I hate to say it but Apathy's point is basically what happens to anyone who legitimately feels like they deserve more than a 2 (or 2.5 as average in your case, pika) in their rankings but receive 2s, some 2.5s and maybe a scant few feel-good 3s.
I get the idea of wanting people to always have something to reach for, but if I know I'm already excelling, relative to my co-workers or via my level of effort and output, recognizing my hard work with a 4 (to hell with even the thought of giving a good worker more money) won't automatically put me into a state of complacency. But It's mental warfare -- basically employment negging -- and it isn't encouraging me to push harder because once this happens the jig is up. I now know no matter how hard I work that the end result is I will receive the same ratings next time we do this. The idea of reaching the highest rating is fully illusory -- a treadmill with a carrot and a stick at the end situation to just keep you running.
Well I was just going by what it says in the article but if we're using hindsight info that popped up after our posts to guide us, the literal person the topic is based on says that it came from above Ybarra in the tweet on the previous page.
Crazy informative series of tweets actually, I had no clue the company was set up the way it is.
Last edited:
But it's not just that. I worked for a big corporation that did shit like this and it's UNBELIEVABLY inefficient. You lose talent, waste time with gaps in the work force, cost of recruitment and training, then get someone only 50% as good replacing them who ends up quitting a year later and repeat. The cost of bad management plans like this is astounding.
That's an odd way to do the system. Every place I've worked at has done a 0-5 system, but 3 signified that you were meeting expectations (doing your job as described), with the adjustments up and down showing how much you were exceeding/missing that mark.
Yeah but management doesn't see it that way when they're taking the decision to enact that plan initially, they think along the lines of "The eye of Sauron is watching the little ants so they'll have to be more productive, then more money!". THEN they realize that everyone is pissed at them and shit isn't viable long term, when you're lucky that is.
No, it's just Elon's Twitter being the piece of garbage that it is. The tweets are still there.
Unilever did that as well. 1-5 ranking and needed 2s for quota.
Your review was in stone so even if they made stuff up you couldn't fight it. Left shortly after.
Your review was in stone so even if they made stuff up you couldn't fight it. Left shortly after.
Yeah, I hadn't read that yet, been trying to avoid directly using Twitter if I can help it and thought all the important info had been embedded.
That said, Brian Birmingham said he only suspects it came from above Ybarra, not that it did. Do we know if the Call of Duty side of the company has stacked ranking too?
Edit: Oh and "hindsight info that popped up after our posts"? Uh, tokkun's post is literally right there on the first page, I even quoted part of it.
well to add insult to injury, you need a 3 or higher to get a raise at my company
This is a common practice across many industries sadly.
HRs review guidelines will suggest that company wide, performance review scores should typically follow some standard deviation.
Then, for whatever reason (money obviously), Department heads will force managers to score their teams according to this standard deviation… fulfilling the prophecy and ensuring that the annual spend for bonuses and raises is predictable.
HRs review guidelines will suggest that company wide, performance review scores should typically follow some standard deviation.
Then, for whatever reason (money obviously), Department heads will force managers to score their teams according to this standard deviation… fulfilling the prophecy and ensuring that the annual spend for bonuses and raises is predictable.
I don't like the concept - seems to encourage competition. Of the staff I manage, they work different hours and have very different roles. I don't really know how I could rank them. Also one is very career-motivated and the other is happy where they are. They all do a good job and complete the tasks asked of them to a high standard.
We have also got to remember some people just work to live, rather than live to work. And there's nothing wrong with that. Let's not patronise adults or pretend we are back in school. These are grown up people who are more than capable of deciding their approach to work without some overbearing manager treating them like an infant.
We have also got to remember some people just work to live, rather than live to work. And there's nothing wrong with that. Let's not patronise adults or pretend we are back in school. These are grown up people who are more than capable of deciding their approach to work without some overbearing manager treating them like an infant.
Just read about this and found the thread here but this is some BULLSHIT. I never heard of companies doing this. How have we not pushed for a fucking revolution of the workforce at this point. Didn't realize this kind of bullshit was that prevalent.
Did the guy quit or was he fired? Why did he say, "I would return if allowed to, so that I could fight the stack-ranking policy from inside?" Makes it sound like he'd return even if the policy was still in place so he could fight it, in which case why did he leave in the first place? Simply because he wanted to get around rating his report poorly?
Crazy to think all the "good" managers I encountered in my career ended up in burnout/at odds with their management/or bailed to another company because they were clearly told they had no advancement prospects because they were "defending" the people under them over just riding the company line.
Which one? The first saying that he will support the games of an horrible company or the second they ABK is a horrible company and we should try not to support it?
This is common in Banking. GE pushed it first decades ago. MS tried it for a few years, but relented and stopped.
Is it possible someone spoke to Jason on behalf of Brian or just claimed to be Brian
View: https://twitter.com/brianbirming/status/1617688562148978690?s=46&t=z3a6PwVOz6a6mkDMke9Vwg
View: https://twitter.com/brianbirming/status/1617688562148978690?s=46&t=z3a6PwVOz6a6mkDMke9Vwg
I believe Schreier said earlier in this thread that he reached out and didn't receive any response.
The company I work for had that system for a while, thanfully they changed it several years ago...It was awful to have to tell someone "sorry dude, you did good, but someone did better...so you did bad".
Bloomberg/Jason should've done more to try and reach out for comment imo.
Bloomberg/Jason should've done more to try and reach out for comment imo.
Rather than reiterate a post that already mentions this, but can anyone point me to a post that explains what stack ranking is and why it is bad?
Jason Schreier is absolutely known in the industry for burning his sources and was the editor for the Nathalie Lawhead article were they lied about a sexual assault victims for clout/clicks (also never mentioned it or apologised for it despite Nathalie campaigning for the articles removal for years - eventually Kotaku's owner company removed it)
View: https://twitter.com/wuffles/status/1617706905937534977?s=46&t=ag4tL44lwcpZ-3pgB9WAZw
Jason knows that Brian did not want his name attached to this and could have extreme negative consequences for him. Jason could get it removed from article. Jason won't because it advances his career with clout and clicks. Jason will continue to block every dev on twitter that brings up these issues with him. This will come up again and again
View: https://twitter.com/wuffles/status/1617706905937534977?s=46&t=ag4tL44lwcpZ-3pgB9WAZw
Jason knows that Brian did not want his name attached to this and could have extreme negative consequences for him. Jason could get it removed from article. Jason won't because it advances his career with clout and clicks. Jason will continue to block every dev on twitter that brings up these issues with him. This will come up again and again
This happens at all corporations and it is flat out dumb. You could have a team of superstars(sports analogy: you could have 1 superstar from each NBA team on your starting 5, but the CEO would still force you to not pout "exceed expectations" for all 5). It is so backwards, and I have been a part of the process before. Such a meaningless quota tbh.
That's so fucking scummy. Literally *anything* for clicks. I hate "leak" culture so damn much.
PC Gamer is saying he was fired, which is it?
https://www.pcgamer.com/blizzard-fi...after-he-protests-employee-evaluation-policy/
https://www.pcgamer.com/blizzard-fi...after-he-protests-employee-evaluation-policy/
This was already in the bloomberg article. Per both articles the manager in question stated to HR they would not work until the policy was changed as part of their protest.
Just heard about this from Rhykker. Unbelievably stupid system that unjustly punishes employees for no good reason.
So of course Blizzard decides to implement it.
He is 100% right.
So of course Blizzard decides to implement it.
He is 100% right.
This is exactly on point (edit: holy crap I just saw your username after posting this!), the positive effects people think this system has brings with them equal and opposite negative effects. As soon as you give someone who worked hard and performed well a mediocre grade because they got nudged out by a stupid quota system you are effectively murdering their motivation to repeat or exceed their performance going forward, not motivating them to 'try even harder', especially if they have a good idea of their worth.
User Banned (5 Days): Hostility towards another member
Silence isn't consent, but congrats on the article, I'm glad to know you would theoretically have spent a lot of time thinking how you could further advance your career.
Very foxy.
So leet.
This person was not a source for Jason, so Jason is under 0 obligation to protect his name or identity. Imagine how poorly the news would work if a non-participating subject could control what is published in a story.
That is a major problem. If you work your tail off and get caught with a "regular" grade for it because of this, that can become a new baseline and you're screwed going forward.
Game Platforms recent news | Game Developer
Explore the latest news and expert commentary on Game Platforms, brought to you by the editors of Game Developer
Didn't find a thread for this but I'm sure there's one somewhere about blizzard killing WFH
Turns out however, it's Mike also pushing for it, not just some random Activision higher ups, Ybarra himself