Forced ranking

A vitality curve is a leadership construct whereby a workforce is graded in accordance with the individual productivity of its members. It is also known as forced ranking, forced distribution, rank and yank, and stack ranking.

For example, there is an often cited "80-20 rule" - also known as the "Pareto principle" or the "Law of the Vital Few" - whereby 80% of crimes are committed by 20% of criminals, or 80% of useful research results are produced by 20% of the academics, and so forth. In some cases such "80-20" tendencies do emerge, and a Pareto distribution curve is a fuller representation.

Rank-based employment evaluation

Jack Welch's vitality model has been described as a "20-70-10" system. The "top 20" percent of the workforce is most productive, and 70% (the "vital 70") work adequately. The other 10% ("bottom 10") are nonproducers and should be fired.[1][2] Rank-and-yank advocates credit Welch's rank-and-yank system with a 28-fold increase in earnings (and a 5-fold increase in revenue) at GE between 1981 and 2001.[3]

Straight from the Gut

In Straight from the Gut, Welch says that he asked "each of the GE's businesses to rank all of their top executives". Specifically (in accordance with the 20-70-10 model) the top executives were divided into "A", "B", and "C" players. Welch admitted that the judgments were "not always precise".

"A" players

"A" players, Welch claimed, are

  • filled with passion
  • committed to "making things happen"
  • open to ideas from anywhere
  • and blessed with lots of "runway" ahead of them,
  • have charisma, the ability to energize themselves and others,
  • can make business productive and enjoyable at the same time.
  • and exhibit the "four E's" of leadership:
    • very high Energy levels
    • can Energize others around common goals
    • the "Edge" to make difficult decisions,
    • the ability to consistently Execute, or deliver on their promises

"B" players

The vital "B" players may not be visionary or the most driven, but are "vital" because they make up the majority of the group.

"C" players

"C" players are nonproducers. They are likely to "enervate" rather than "energize", according to Serge Hovnanian's model. Procrastination is a common trait of "C" players, as well as failure to deliver on promises.

These designations apply not only to workers at the bottom levels, but also managers.


Welch advises firing "C" players, while encouraging "A" players with rewards such as promotions, bonuses, and stock options.

Criticisms of rank-and-yank

The model assumes that the players do not change their rating. In practice even the fear of being selected as a "C" player may result in an employee working harder, reducing the number of "C" players.

Some critics believe that the 20-70-10 model fails to reflect actual human behavior.[4][5] Among randomly selected people assigned to a task, such a model may be accurate. They contend, however, that at each iteration, the average quality of employees will increase, making for more "A" players and fewer "C" players. Eventually, the "C" players comprise less than 10% of the workforce.

Since the 2000s, Microsoft used a stack ranking similar to the vitality curve. Hypothetically, supposing that the company "had managed to hire technology’s top players into a single unit before they made their names elsewhere—Steve Jobs of Apple, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, Larry Page of Google, Larry Ellison of Oracle, and Jeff Bezos of Amazon—regardless of performance, under one of the iterations of stack ranking, two of them would have to be rated as below average, with one deemed disastrous". Many Microsoft executives noted that company "superstars did everything they could to avoid working alongside other top-notch developers, out of fear that they would be hurt in the rankings". It has been said that this stack ranking stifled innovation, as employees were more concerned about making sure that their peers or rival projects failed instead of proposing new inventions, overall turning the company into a collection of non-cooperating fiefdoms which was unable to catch onto many technology trends. [1]

The style may make it more difficult for employees to cross rate from one division to another. For example, a "C" employee in a company's Customer Service division would be at a disadvantage applying for a job in Marketing, even though he or she may have talents consistent with an "A" rating in the other division.

This is a competitive model of organization. The criticisms of both the morality and actual effectiveness of such a dog-eat-dog method of social cohesion apply. Challenges to the model include: "C" player selection methods; the effect of office politics and lowered morale on productivity, communication, interoffice relations; and cheating. Rank-based performance evaluations (in education and employment) are said to foster cut-throat and unethical behavior.[6] University of Virginia business professor Bruner wrote: As Enron internally realized it was entering troubled times, rank-and-yank turned into a more political and crony-based system.[7]

Rank-and-yank contrasts with the management philosophies of W. Edwards Deming, whose broad influence in Japan has been credited with Japan's world leadership in many industries, particularly the automotive industry. "Evaluation by performance, merit rating, or annual review of performance" is listed among Deming's Seven Deadly Diseases. It may be said that rank-and-yank puts success or failure of the organization on the shoulders of the individual worker. Deming stresses the need to understand organizational performance as fundamentally a function of the corporate systems and processes created by management in which workers find themselves embedded. He sees so-called merit-based evaluation as misguided and destructive.

Companies utilizing this management philosophy

Management consulting

Rank-and-yank-like models are common amongst management consulting firms, including public accounting firms (e.g., the "Big Four"), often referred to as an 'up or out' approach to evaluations. Specifically, Accenture as well as PricewaterhouseCoopers use an 'up-or-out' model with their staff: if employees are not promoted after a certain length of time at their existing career level (usually no more than 4–5 years), they are 'counselled out' of the firm (shorthand for being fired—but on generous terms).

Once a year (twice a year in the UK), Accenture consulting employees are rated based on their performance into one of five rankings at their career level.

This system promotes vitality in the firm, theoretically allowing only the strongest performers to reach leadership positions. In practice, however, this system has a tendency to dilute leadership, as individuals who may be better oriented toward upper management and executive positions leave the firm before promotion to those levels is possible. Additionally, due to extraordinarily high levels of employee attrition, Accenture is built on the need for enormous recruitment, particularly at the entry level. If, for some reason, the firm was no longer able to recruit the enormous number of graduates it requires each year—or was unable to attract a high quality of graduate—this model would falter.


GE is by far the most famous company to utilize this form of corporate management. However, since Jack Welch's departure from the company, less emphasis has been placed on eliminating the bottom 10% and more emphasis placed on team-building.[8]


Enron traders also commonly were under the threat of being fired if they did not produce the desired results. Though the accounting scandals are most credited with the demise of the company, it has later come out that part of the downfall was attributed to employees inflating results in part to help protect their jobs. More about this can be seen in the movie Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room.


Motorola instituted a Vitality Curve plan in the mid-90's under the name IDE (Individual Dignity Entitlement). First six, then nine metrics questions were used to rank employees' perception at the corporation. In 2000-2002, the plan was changed to the PM (Performance Management) program, which was a direct 10-80-10 philosophy and used to "weed out" the lowest producers and reward the highest producers, while offering little to no rewards compensation to the mid-level producers. Some 50,000 employees globally were cut from the Motorola global workforce between 1995 and 2005, and many of these can be attributed to the Vitality Curve. Economics also played a major role, as the stock suffered major losses in the same period.


Starting in 2006 Microsoft has used a Vitality Curve despite intense internal criticism.[9] Mini-Microsoft, an anonymous blogger internal to the company, made "the curve" a frequent topic on his blog.

In a memo to all Microsoft employees dated April 21, 2011, chief executive Steve Ballmer announced the company would make explicit the Vitality Curve model of performance evaluation: "We are making this change so all employees see a clear, simple, and predictable link between their performance, their rating, and their compensation." [10] The new model has 5 buckets of pre-defined size (20%, 20%, 40%, 13%, and 7%), and management simply ranks. All compensation is pre-defined based on the bucket, and employees in the bottom bucket are ineligible to move positions with the understanding they will soon be yanked.

Dow Chemical

Dow Chemical uses a Vitality Curve program under the guise of Performance Management. The program started in 2005 with mixed results.


IBM has used a Vitality Curve program since before 2006. While often used to shift workforce to geographical areas with the lowest compensation, its main purpose is to provide the appearance of objective performance-related reasons for eliminating staff, when the real motivation is cutting expenses. [11]

See also


External links

  • GE Commercial finance promoting the idea of the Vitality Curve


  • Shyamal Majumdar: The rank-and-yank appraisal system, April 2003
  • the original in April 2005
  • "Human Resource Management", Steve Gall – examines stack ranking at Microsoft, 2005
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.