Reflections on Microsoft’s Past: Insights from a Former Engineer
In the realm of technology giants, Microsoft has recently captured attention due to significant layoffs. Yet, former engineer Dave Plummer offers a glimpse into the company’s past, particularly the experiences of the 1990s and the infamous stack ranking system that characterized that era.
Plummer, who was part of Microsoft during its formative years, recalls a time when the hiring process was both selective and rigorous. “At the time we didn’t have a big issue with it because the hiring was really selective and strict,” he noted. “I felt like I was really lucky to get in there.” Despite the demanding nature of interviews, some individuals managed to secure positions, even if their coding skills were not exemplary.
He elaborated on the dual paths that could emerge for those who might not fit the traditional developer mold. “If that person was smart analytically or gifted in some kind of design way or analytical way, but just couldn’t code with the rest of us, then they might look at a program management job,” Plummer explained. In this context, program managers were not merely seen as failed developers; rather, they occupied a role better suited to their strengths. Conversely, the promotion of exceptionally skilled engineers into management positions sometimes resulted in a loss of talent, as the company gained a manager who might not excel in that capacity.
For those who were perhaps misaligned with their roles from the outset, Microsoft implemented the Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). Plummer described this system as a structured approach where employees were not permitted to transfer internally. “You had to bring your performance grade up within a certain number of months or a year, or whatever the deadline was, and [if] you couldn’t do that then you were ‘managed out,'” he stated, succinctly summarizing the potential outcome: termination.
While PIP could act as a safety net for employees facing temporary challenges, Plummer reflected on its broader implications. “I think it’s to save people that shouldn’t be fired in the first place,” he remarked, hinting at the complexities of employee performance and management.
However, the stack ranking system left a more negative impression on Plummer. He recounted meetings where a bell curve was applied to evaluate staff, regardless of their actual performance levels. “It’s basically a lifeboat drill,” he said, describing the cutthroat nature of the process. “It’s like ‘we have 20 people, but the lifeboat only holds 18. Who goes?'” This competitive atmosphere fostered an environment of infighting, where employees were pitted against one another to avoid being the ones left behind.
In 2013, Microsoft ultimately abandoned stack ranking, a decision that some attributed to a “lost decade” of internal strife and diminished morale. Plummer vividly illustrated the dynamics of these meetings, where employees would name names in a bid to secure their own positions. “You’re in there naming names,” he recalled, “like ‘I would fire this guy next, and I would fire your guy – that slacker – that I don’t like in email because he doesn’t capitalize’…”
When asked to compare the atmosphere of these evaluations to popular culture, Plummer quipped, “More like The Bachelor. Your boss would come in with a rose, and he would decide which of you to give it to.” This analogy captures the essence of a system that, while intended to foster excellence, often devolved into a spectacle of survival.
