Company: Microsoft
Date: 2013-08-09
Overall rating: 4/5
Employment status: current
Experience level: Senior

Could be a lot worse
Pros: I love it here. I have been at the company for 9 years and I think it is a great place to work. I am a single income earner, I support a family of 4 comfortably, I have good (not great) work/life balance, I feel valued in my job, I support my leadership's broader ambitions, even if I disagree tactically from time to time. 

Slackers are not welcome. Microsoft pays for performance. How do I know? Because I am one of those calibrating people. I see the review model from the inside, I am one of those applying the 1-5 model to people. It is widely misunderstood, has great merit and accomplishes its purpose (however bluntly.)

We differentiate, and reward high performers. The primary function of the 1-5 stack rank is to distinguish who did "better" - contrary to popular perception that it is a way to indicate who isn't cutting it. Most people at the company do a fine job, but like every other workplace, certain individual stand out. The are rewarded accordingly. I'll challenge any existing employee at the company who believes that this stack rank is anything other than merit-based to go and find a new role. There are a lot of people at the company getting it right when it comes to evaluating people.

In case you needed evidence to the fact, consider how many layoffs have occurred in the past 5 years, despite our ongoing stack/rank practices. If the company truly believed its 4's and 5's were underperforming, they wouldn't be here. 

This company gives over $100M to charity every year. People are very passionate and dedicated to the things they value most, and the company rewards that passion with matching for time and money.
Cons: Despite my approval of the general concept of differentiation, I do find the 1-5 stack rank process to be a little stark, and hard for people to appreciate. The real problem is that if you get a lower rating, you get a lower bonus and stock award. The way to resolve that problem is to reward the high performers less and the low performers more. On the surface 99% of employees are simply unwilling to do that, because they believe they are a 1 or 2, and everybody else are the 4's and 5's. 

This is a large company, and your success is largely dependent on relationships and your ability to connect with your peers. This is counter-intuitive to many. The best technology doesn't always win, but the most compelling argument does. Building those takes trust, consistent results and a good network. I suspect some times we're leaving great ideas on the cutting room floor for sake of relationships across the company.  While it is great to have a collaborative culture, the degree to which feedback loops become galvanized and impenetrable is far too great. We need more disruption from the ground. There is a tremendous amount of talent within this company.