4 ms·
Assuming you meant "Perf[ormance reviews]", like a sibling comment suggested, don't you think Google can figure out how to assess someone, even if the environme
by sverhagen 9y ago
Assuming you meant "Perf[ormance reviews]", like a sibling comment suggested, don't you think Google can figure out how to assess someone, even if the environment is more-experimental than just plowing through well-defined backlog? They already have Research (capital R) teams for which they must have addressed this in some way, and those are probably even much less causal in their contribution to output relationship (which is what I presume the difficulty in measuring performance amounts to)?
- kajecounterhack 9y ago1. Research teams at Google are unlike most other companies. You're expected to write code and deliver results. 2. It's not inability to measure Area 120'ers. Not putting participants through perf is ostensibly because they want to give a true entrepreneury environment where you are only measured by your product's success. Traditional performance review is...more complicated, to say the least.
- jboggan 9y agoThe "Perf" process currently leads to some perverse incentives. I think part of the removal of Perf is to avoid those incentives for the more entrepreneurial efforts while also not penalizing Googlers that choose to work on those projects. Can't have good folks getting "Needs Improvement" or even "Meets Expectations" because their project didn't pan out.