.svg)
Stack ranking (sometimes called forced ranking, vitality curve or the rank‑and‑yank system) is a performance‑management technique in which organizations evaluate employees against each other and place them into predefined performance categories.
The practice gained prominence in the 1980s when General Electric’s CEO Jack Welch instituted a 20‑70‑10 model: roughly 20 % of the workforce is labelled high‑performing, 70 % are considered adequate and the bottom 10 % are classified as under‑performers who may be removed. Some implementations use a 15‑70‑15 split, but the premise remains a bell‑curve distribution.
Adoption has declined sharply: a survey referenced by the Institute for Corporate Productivity found that 42 % of companies used forced ranking in 2009, yet only 14% did so by 2011. The system is controversial because supporters say it rewards hard work and makes goals clear, but critics say it reduces creativity, causes more employees to quit, and creates an unhealthy work environment.
This article explains how stack ranking works, why some organizations adopted it, its benefits and drawbacks, and outlines modern alternatives.
What Is Stack Ranking?
Stack ranking is a structured employee evaluation method that compares individuals against their colleagues rather than against absolute objectives. The technique, also called the vitality curve, divides employees into categories based on their relative performance. Welch’s original vitality model segments the workforce into three groups — top performers, the “vital” middle and the lowest performers, using a 20‑70‑10 split. Some organizations adjust the percentages (for example, a 15‑70‑15 split) but all forced distribution models cap the number of employees who can be rated as top performers.
If you’d like to explore how modern performance management systems work beyond stack ranking, you can read our blog on shifting from annual reviews to continuous performance management.
The mechanics of a typical stack‑ranking process follow several steps:
- Set evaluation criteria. Leaders establish clear metrics or behaviours that will be used to assess performance.
- Collect performance data. Throughout the review period, managers monitor employees and gather feedback.
- Rank against peers. Rather than reviewing employees against role‑specific goals, managers assign relative rankings that force the distribution into predetermined categories.
- Allocate rewards and consequences. Those in the top category may receive promotions, bonuses or recognition, while those at the bottom are placed on improvement plans or dismissed.
Different organizations assign labels such as “A,” “B,” and “C” players. The common feature is the ranking tool or process that enforces a fixed distribution rather than allowing everyone to succeed. Because the ranking is comparative, an employee’s fate depends on colleagues’ performance: even a strong performer can land in the bottom tier if the team overall excels.
Why Stack Ranking Was Adopted
Advocates of stack ranking argue that it creates clarity and enforces a meritocracy. Welch promoted the approach as a way to differentiate top talent and systematically remove poor performers. ClearCompany notes that stack ranking can help reduce bias because advancement and rewards are tied to performance rather than tenure or personal relationships. A rigid ranking method can also spur employees to work harder: consistently recognising good work increases engagement and satisfaction, and the threat of being placed in the bottom tier may motivate under‑performers to improve.
Supporters also point to decision‑making efficiency. In theory, the distribution simplifies complex judgments by forcing managers to prioritize limited promotion budgets and allocate rewards. In large organizations, standardising evaluations via a ranking tool can provide a consistent framework across departments. Proponents therefore viewed stack ranking as a way to identify high performers for critical projects, calibrate compensation and improve accountability.
Advantages of Stack Ranking
While controversial, stack ranking offers several potential benefits when implemented carefully:
- Establishes clear standards:
Forced ranking requires managers to articulate performance criteria and compare employees consistently, which can reduce ambiguity. - Supports merit‑based rewards:
By ranking employees, organizations can focus promotions, bonuses and development opportunities on those who demonstrate the greatest contribution. - Identifies poor performers:
The system compels managers to acknowledge under‑performance instead of ignoring it; poor performers can then receive coaching or exit the organization. - Encourages recognition:
Regularly celebrating top performers can improve morale: research cited by ClearCompany notes that consistent recognition correlates with higher engagement. - Simplifies resource allocation:
For companies with limited budgets, a structured ranking tool helps allocate financial rewards and opportunities in a transparent manner.
Drawbacks and Risks of Stack Ranking
Despite these advantages, numerous studies and industry experiences highlight serious problems with stack ranking:
1. Undermines collaboration and innovation
Stack ranking pits employees against their peers. A former Microsoft engineer explained that on a ten‑person team only two people would receive excellent reviews, seven would be rated average and one would be labelled poor. This predictable distribution led employees to focus on outperforming colleagues rather than collaborating to beat competitors.
To learn practical ways to strengthen engagement and collaboration, explore our article on using feedback and reviews to build better performance.
2. Drives turnover and associated costs
Because the bottom 10–15 % are placed on improvement plans or dismissed, stack ranking can increase turnover. According to the Society for Human Resource Management, replacing an employee costs 50–60% of their annual salary directly and total turnover costs can reach 90–200 % of salary. High turnover also removes institutional knowledge and disrupts operations.
3. Promotes a toxic culture
Forced ranking encourages information hoarding, competition and fear. Employees become reluctant to share knowledge because helping colleagues might reduce their own ranking. Over time this creates distrust and manipulation. In organizations with high trust, employers benefit from increased loyalty and engagement, yet stack ranking has the opposite effect.
4. Introduces bias and arbitrary outcomes
Stack ranking relies heavily on managers’ perceptions. Business development consultant Carol Tompkins notes that subjective perceptions often bias rankings, making performance reviews ineffective. Moreover, the system assumes that every team includes under‑performers. If a team is uniformly strong, at least one person must still be labelled “low performance”. This can lead to arbitrary dismissals and potential discrimination lawsuits.
5. May not fit performance distributions
The bell‑curve assumption may not reflect actual performance data. The forced distribution pattern (20‑70‑10 or 15‑70‑15) is grounded in the idea of normal distribution, but employee performance may not follow this pattern. When the model doesn’t align with reality, companies may erroneously penalize competent employees.
6. Creates excessive managerial burden
Beyond cultural costs, stack ranking is time‑consuming. The Institute for Corporate Productivity reported that managers spend hundreds of hours annually on performance reviews and ranking tasks. This administrative burden diverts attention from coaching and development.
7. Prevalence and Trends
Forced ranking was widely adopted by Fortune 500 companies in the 1990s and early 2000s, but usage has declined rapidly. High‑performing companies moved away from the practice faster than others, and major adopters — including General Electric, Microsoft, Amazon and Yahoo, publicly abandoned stack ranking after experiencing cultural and innovation problems.
Alternatives to Stack Ranking
Organizations seeking to evaluate performance fairly and motivate employees have developed several alternatives:
- 360‑degree feedback and peer reviews:
Gathering input from peers, subordinates, supervisors and sometimes customers provides a fuller picture of performance. This approach reduces bias and encourages collaboration. - Employee self‑assessments:
Allowing employees to evaluate their own work fosters self‑reflection and ownership. When combined with manager feedback, it leads to constructive conversations. - Continuous performance management:
Frequent check‑ins and coaching throughout the year provide timely feedback and adjust expectations. ClearCompany notes that continuous reviews increase engagement and enable skill development. - Goal‑based evaluations:
Aligning individual goals with organisational objectives helps employees see how their work contributes to strategic priorities. - Performance development plans:
Personalized plans outline strengths and areas for improvement, providing a roadmap for growth. - Peer recognition programs:
Programs that allow employees to recognize colleagues’ achievements promote a positive culture and reduce reliance on hierarchical rankings. - Agile performance management:
Agile methods adjust expectations and feedback based on changing business needs, which is useful for innovative environments. - Holistic metrics:
Combining quantitative results with qualitative factors like teamwork, adaptability and innovation yields a more balanced assessment.
These alternatives shift the focus from ranking and punitive measures to development, coaching and collaboration. They also support flexible and inclusive performance management, which is increasingly important in modern workplaces.
If you’re interested in running better 360‑degree reviews and peer recognition programs, you can read our complete guide: What is 360-Degree Feedback? A Complete Guide.
Implementation Considerations
If an organization decides to use a ranking tool or any kind of forced distribution, it should adopt safeguards to mitigate risks:
- Establish transparent criteria:
Communicate how performance will be measured and ensure criteria align with organizational values, not just short‑term output. - Train evaluators:
Provide managers with training on bias mitigation and consistent application of the evaluation process. - Use data and peer input:
Supplement manager judgments with objective metrics and peer feedback to reduce subjectivity. - Limit the consequences:
Avoid automatic termination; instead, focus on development plans and coaching for those in lower tiers. - Regularly review the system:
Audit outcomes to ensure the process does not disproportionately impact certain groups and adjust the model as needed.
Even with these precautions, many organizations find that flexible, growth‑oriented approaches yield better results than rigid stack ranking. Leaders should weigh the cultural costs and potential legal risks before implementing any forced distribution system.
ThriveSparrow as a Modern Example
Modern performance management software has evolved to support continuous feedback, real‑time recognition and goal alignment without forcing employees into rigid rankings. For example, ThriveSparrow is an employee‑experience platform that provides 360‑degree reviews, pulse surveys, goal tracking and peer recognition features.
Instead of relying on a forced distribution, it uses analytics and feedback to identify development needs and celebrate achievements. By integrating surveys with performance data, ThriveSparrow helps managers coach employees proactively, fostering engagement and reducing turnover. Many organizations now prefer these adaptive tools because they align better with agile work environments and support inclusive cultures.
Try ThriveSparrow free for 14 days and upgrade from outdated, competitive ranking systems to continuous, fair, and growth‑focused performance management—no credit card required.
Unlock data‑driven insights, 1:1s, and feedback loops that actually help people improve instead of just scoring them.
.svg){kind=small}
