In between these two fixed groups is almost 70% of the workforce, whom are all labeled “vital” and are depended upon for adequate performance. Those labeled as such are then either placed in a probationary improvement period or let go. Only about 10-20% can be designated top performers, and a fixed number of employees must be labeled as low performers. In a stack ranking performance appraisal process, managers are forced to rate their employees according to the existing bell curve.

But stack ranking limits the range of autonomy of that process altogether. The goal of any management team that instigates performance appraisals is to cultivate a high-performance workforce. Stack rankings arise when organizations are seeking out methods of enacting performance appraisals in an effective and efficient way. This method of evaluation worked well for GE because, at the time of its introduction, the company had become too big, and the employees too comfortable. By ranking individual employees relatively against each other, managers can reward top-tier performers and identify and weed out low performers. He also popularized the 15/75/10 curve for the top, middle, and bottom employees. This practice wa s first conceptualized by GE’s CEO Jack Welch in the 1980s a way of differentiating high-performers and low-performers.

Stack ranking is a management practice in which leaders are asked to rank employees on a curve according to their performance, with the lowest performers placed at the bottom and rallied into performance improvement plans or terminated altogether. But which side is right? And how do we know if (or when) we should (or shouldn’t) use it? Some condemn it as a cutthroat, destructive, creatively stifling practice, while others claim it is the secret ingredient to securing a high-performance workplace. Any amount of research into the practice of stack ranking will demonstrate just how divisive of a topic it truly is.

Stack ranking meetin