(Apologies for LinkedIn’s seemingly IP-based login-wall. It renders without login over Tor quite happily.)
[Comment removed by author]
Do you really think that this represents reality across the board? I’ve never worked for a company that did stack ranking in my 25 years in this industry, and unless conditions were really dire I wouldn’t as a matter of principle.
If she can afford to be without work for a bit while looking, what does she have to lose? She can even tell prospective employers why she left her last job and, provided they’re the right kind of companies, it’ll be a very compelling story.
Giving it a more thorough read, I actually rather like the article. It’s about having a very firm sense of professional ethics, and sticking to them, recognizing that you will almost certainly have to face negative ramifications as a result.
Not everyone is in a position where we have that kind of leeway (mortgage, kids, whatever) but it’s nice to see people reminding us that it’s something we should consider or at least not rule out when we find our ethical envelope being pushed.
I hate stack ranking with a passion, but this article is not programming- or technology-related.
It’s a gray area, but I’d agree that applying the ‘practices’ tag here is a bit of a stretch.
I think culture may have been a better fit.
Forced stack-ranking is bad but optional stack-ranking need not be. The first time I was asked to stack-rank people on my small team, I felt a very similar sense of “but they’re all doing a great job”. Fortunately, I discovered that I was able to just put all of them at the same level because we use multi-stacks (i.e. you can have more than one person at each level of the stack) so I didn’t have to quit.
But more recently, while working on a larger team, I knew that some people were far more productive than others and therefore had no qualms about using multiple levels of the stack. Stack-ranking can be useful if it’s not mandatory.
Take off and nuke the entire site from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.