Every company over a certain size will have stack ranking or something like it. Division leaders and VPs need an available knife to stick in the backs of their rivals. If stack ranking or URA doesn't exist, then they'll use a down quarter to create it, ("With the economy the way it is, we have to do some belt-tightening") then wield it to destroy their enemies.

If all the VPs are cheerful, happy, nice guys, then someone will emerge from the lower ranks to overthrow the weakest member. From there, the bloodbath begins.

It's intended as a simple forcing function against the strong incentives for managers to say that all their reports are performing well. Companies that don't stack rank still have to solve this problem, and while I'm ultimately opposed to stack ranking, it's probably true that the alternatives are more subjective and error prone.

Lazy thinking, IMO. It's the sort of concept a child might come up with because it is so "simple". If you think about it for more than 5 minutes you see the problem, but it's too late, the lazy thinkers have mandated it.

Blame it on Jack Welch[1]. I can't think of a more toxic system. It has become pervasive and people bring it up as if it's some received wisdom from Gods or like some fundamental physics law. That you can rank humans on some imaginary "performance" parameter is just, let's say, inhuman.

I get that some are more impactful than others. But that's just a matter of so many parameters. IME someone producing less output has always been due to some shitty process/documentation/systems. I'd rather fix the underlying problem. But no, like some law set in stone, they have to be ranked and the bottom 10% must be yanked.

/rant

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitality_curve