5 ms·

I can confidently say this: I'm highly knowledgeable of what several big-name companies are doing, and it's not as big of a difference as they market it to be.

I can confidently say this: I'm highly knowledgeable of what several big-name companies are doing, and it's not as big of a difference as they market it to be. For one, there are still ratings behind the scenes so it's actually just making the process less transparent than before. For the other (one of which is named in the title of this post), they haven't figured out what they'll be doing instead, which means it may just be lipstick on a pig.

hardwaresofton 11y ago
This is precisely what I was afraid of -- and kind of expected, with the roster of companies that are touting this shift. Nothing against the companies mentioned (I wouldn't mind it if they bought my time/effort some day), but they're not necessarily known for moving fast/doing crazy HR innovation/etc. Replacing performance reviews is a huge endeavor, I didn't really get the feel from this article of the definitive thing they found that enabled them to do it without making everything worse
steve-howard 11y ago
Here's another company that overhauled its reviews not so long ago: http://blogs.seattletimes.com/microsoftpri0/2013/11/12/microsoft-gets-rid-of-stacking-ranking-review-system/ http://blogs.seattletimes.com/microsoftpri0/2013/11/12/micro... I have as little insight into the process as before. We get to do performance paperwork more often, but the process that turns that into money is as opaque as it ever was.