10 ms·

Ask HN: How does your company do performance reviews?

77 points by maruhan2 9y ago

Share your company's performance review methods (or even link to your performance review forms), and your thoughts on them.

ikurei 9y ago
A related question: Should you do them? They don't seem useful in tiny companies, where you can just see how everyone is doing, apart from informal "What is worrying you" conversations. How big a company you have to be for them to be useful/necessary?
- humanrebar 9y ago
  It's hard not to have some sort of review process if you want to be able to fire someone. If anyone challenges their dismissal for performance reasons, you'll want a record of the "conversations" (1) you had. This is why a lot of review processes include some sort of sign-off by the parties involved. (1) Scare quotes around "conversations" because I've never seen management approach an underperforming employee and then realize that they had a big part in that. Conversations tend to be more two-way than that.
  - davidvanleeuwen 9y ago
    In our situation, which is a relatively small company, it's used to keep people energized, focused and well... happy. Without it, we had regular team meetings where people talked about frustrations they had (and it exploded at times). I don't think having it around as way to fire someone is the right approach.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      I'm a huge fan of more informal one-on-one meetings. To the point where I will consider a move if I'm not getting enough time with my management. I don't consider those "performance reviews" though.
- marssaxman 9y ago
  I have found that the existence of a formal performance review program is a good proxy for a company's structure having grown and/or calcified to the point that I would no longer be happy to work there. If the startup I'm currently working for someday grows to that point, I'll take it as my cue to start looking for another startup.
gbrown_ 9y ago
I highly recommend checking out Bryan Cantrill's talk from Surge 2013 - Leadership Without Management: Scaling Organizations by Scaling Engineers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGkVM1B5NuI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGkVM1B5NuI
- ndh2 9y ago
  NSFW even with headphones due to some really funny moments.
dan00 9y ago
If you've performance reviews, then you also most likely have some kind of metric, and if you've a metric people will start to game it. A colleague of mine always said: you get what you measure.
- gaius 9y ago
  See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart's_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart's_law
- rootlocus 9y ago
  Management at my company really likes to use jira estimation points as a metric, which is why I always argue for more points and occasionally snatch low hanging fruits (overestimated simple tasks). I'm aware it's stupid, which is why I always point it out, but nobody seems to care. I was the "most productive employee of the year" last year and while I didn't cheat by any definition of the word, it certainly did affect my priorities.
  - throwaway413 9y ago
    This. In fact, at one of the last companies I was at, an agency of about 20, devs were grouped into small teams (1-5) to work on different projects. While we used Jira points - these internal teams had different measurements regarding point count. When I brought it up to various PMs and execs, I got the same answer - "that's the way it's supposed to work." And they used these point counts and burndowns to analyze performance of each dev in comparison with the rest of the team as a whole! So if you estimated 1 point for your story, but some other dev estimated 5 for their story, and they are essentially the same tasks just on different projects - that developer is 5x as productive as you are by their record.
rootlocus 9y ago
My company uses quarterly reviews. Here are the metrics my company uses to review each developer: 1. We have an in-house developed tool that tracks git and mercurial commits and calculates the test coverage and code quality for each individual developer. 2. We use jira to track the number of points each developer burns (points are shared between developer, reviewer and QA). We also track the number of bugs each developer introduces because closing a bugfix is not possible without first assigning the developer who introduced the bug to the jira task. 3. We use peer reviews where each team member rates each other team member on a scale from 1 to 5 (3 being considered sufficient) on aspects like availability, communication, reliability and result orientation. 4. Team leaders offer subjective input on each team member. Of course, many of the metrics will be skewed or won't reflect the reality, which is why the team lead has the right to make adjustments to the final mark. This being said, one of my colleagues and friend was "forced" to quit the company because he scored really low on the jira burn rate metric. He was given a tremendously huge task which nobody cared to properly estimate and break into smaller tasks. As a result he spent 6 monts working on the equivalent of 2 weeks of estimation points. The management (including the team lead which is otherwise a great leader and an awesome person) didn't want to assume any blame for this.
- kkanojia 9y ago
  "one of my colleagues and friend was "forced" to quit the company because he scored really low on the jira burn rate metric" This sounds totally insane. I Cannot believe this happens in real world.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    It sounds like justification for a decision made for less quantitative reasons. Managers don't say, "So let's see who's the worst performer... it's Tom! Weird, he seems to be one of my best developers. Oh, well! The metrics say he's the worst. Off to fire Tom!"
    - msingle 9y ago
      Not in general, but I'm sure there are some that might.
davidvanleeuwen 9y ago
Although we try to stay away from "creating a process" for everything, we've gradually implemented a way for people to give feedback more organically. The thing is, it's not the tool, form or questions you hand out - it's how people use them and think about them. Over a period of time we started using Impraise (impraise.com), although it's not the best tool - it helps people to force to take the time and leave there current mindset to focus on something like giving feedback (on an equal base, because some people are just very good at giving feedback and keep on talking, while others are struggling and need to write it down). Every quarter, you review 2 other people. People read it, interpret it and carry on. However, I sit down with them after everyone has filled in the questions on Impraise (which are not the default ones, but they're pretty straightforward, like: "how good is the quality of your colleague's work?"). This information is used as a base to allow me to ask even more questions, like: "do you agree with this statement?" or "what could you do to improve this situation this colleague is describing?”. The result of this conversation are 4 things: 1. self reflection, 2. setting personal goals (which is mostly one of the things from the self reflection, getting more focus/attention than other things, which is not shared within the team), 3. create and/or help out with team goals, something we should improve as a team and shared within the team, 4. feedback on the process itself. These results are written down as notes and then reflected on the next time we sit down. We have some other tools, methods and things in place to have more of a continuous feedback loop - but it remains a living thing, rather than a set in stone method. If you have questions, you're always welcome to contact me :-)
- kohnke 9y ago
  Hi David, interesting to read your post. My name is Bas Kohnke, co-founder/CEO of Impraise (YC Summer 14). We are always looking for new ways to improve our product, so please feel free to reach me at bas@impraise.com if you are willing to share your experience and ideas. Thanks!
badlucklottery 9y ago
Large company, performance is based almost entirely on feedback from peers and those you report to with check-ins every 6 months. Overall score from 1-5 with a 3 being "meets expectations" and the most common rating by far. The problem is that the feedback from superiors seems to be weighted much higher so the peer feedback is almost useless so don't bother mentoring or helping someone get back in front of their tasking. This leads to a lot of I'm-working-so-hard theatrics instead of actually being efficient/effective and delivering product. Combine this with "suggested targets" (quotas) for the number of people in each 1-5 bin, you end up with the usual stack ranking problem that getting on the shittiest project (and keeping it that way to ward off competition) and making it damn clear to your manager that they can't live without you is the best strategy.
- soneca 9y ago
  If there was a more balanced weighting between superiors, peers and subortinates ratings, do you think these negatives outcomes would be avoided? I just started at a company that kind of use this system. My first impression is that it is a good system and the weighting seems fair. But I would like to be aware of any potential pitfalls with it (not just for me, but for the company also).
  - badlucklottery 9y ago
    >If there was a more balanced weighting between superiors, peers and subordinates ratings, do you think these negatives outcomes would be avoided? Not really because the stack ranking would still turn everything into a knife fight. It might even be worse because people would blame their coworkers for getting another 3 rating instead of everyone being unified in our hatred for upper management and the performance system as a whole. We recently had a big Pres/VP management shakeup and the new crew is supposedly looking into changing the performance reviews but who knows how far that'll go. But they did sort out our crazy hiring requirements almost immediately so fingers crossed that they'll set some more fires before things stabilize. >But I would like to be aware of any potential pitfalls with it (not just for me, but for the company also). My only tip is to find a project lead/manager who didn't drink the kool aid.
drakonka 9y ago
Yes; we have quarterly "check-in" reviews and a larger yearly review where salary is considered. The process consists of peer and self reviews. We used to have a rating system as well where in the yearly review you would get a certain rating out of five options depending on how you did. The rating portion was removed a couple of years ago.
throwaway9ac8 9y ago
Oh don't get me started. Fairly big (>1000 devs) company. Performance reviews are twice a year. In theory: before each cycle, an employee and a manager meet to discuss manager's expectations. If an employee "exceeds expectations" he or she gets a good rating. The rating is then approved and bonus and compensation is determined. In practice: the rating is kind of determined by how employee's work contributed towards "important goals" of the company. This contributes to a deluge of half-assed work pushed into production just before the evaluation begins. Also it of course depends on performance of the other devs. The existence of the curve was never officially acknowledged but it is an open secret that it indeed exists. The evaluation process is extremely opaque and shrouded in mystery. An employee (and his or her manager too) can never be certain that enough work was done for a particular rating as they are subject to correction at the highest levels of hierarchy (rumor has it that the CTO himself approves the final ratings of all developers above certain level). The process is also extremely long (easily exceeds 1.5 months) and taxing for line managers who have to defend their subordinates' ratings against cuts. The meetings between an employee and a manager are very awkward. In theory the manager should discuss career prospects and deliver valuable feedback, but what is the point of delivering feedback on something that happened 5 months ago? Why would you wait for so long to do it? So everyone just goes through the motions during these meetings as quickly as possible. The whole process is very inefficient. Frankly, it stinks. (Personally, I've fared fairly well so it is not an instance of sour grapes). My opinion it that the only reason it exists is because it provides the potential of almost authoritarian control and ample micromanagement opportunities. I wonder, are my experience and feelings somehow special or is it a common thing in our industry?
- auxym 9y ago
  Wow, I work in a big, non-software-focused, multinational company, in a mechanical engineer role. Your post describes our exact review process. What more, it seems managers always set the expectation high, or vague, that way everyone always get 3/5 (meets expectations). By now I'm almost 100% convinced that there is an official HR guideline that they are not allowed to give higher than 3/5 overall rating.
  - 9y ago
wj 9y ago
Would be interested to know what software people use for peer reviews?
- softawre 9y ago
  Email
  - wj 9y ago
    That definitely doesn't meet our anonymity requirement. :)
yttrium 9y ago
I recently moved from a large (40k employees) company to a small one (600). Performance reviews at the large company always involve a lot of paperwork, self reviews, and hoping that your manager gives you good feedback. Reviews are rated from 1-5 where 3 is the midpoint and is considered 'acceptable'. Tbh, I started as an intern there, and I can recall three or four times someone scored 4+ off the top of my head. Getting a 3 was so trivially easy it was almost insulting. Getting a 5 once required a lot of work outside of the office and usually meant you wouldn't be able to get it again the following cycle. Most of these incentive systems are just focused around being the best personal brand manager anyway, because they incentivize employees to sign up for the shittiest projects and then make a lot of noise and throw around a lot of money and bullshit to make sure everyone knows that they're singlehandedly saving the company. At the small company, we mostly do small one on ones, and you set some yearly goals for each fiscal year that you get evaluated against. There aren't any 'metrics' involved, and it seems mostly like it's aggregation of subjective reviews from superiors and coworkers. This approach seems to work well for everyone. We have a really technical developer who doesn't really do the social game (and he's remote) and he does excellent every year. I'm more of a mix (I like to communicate with endusers and so on) and I did well this year too. Frankly, I think the biggest thing is just getting out of big corporate environments. They're tough for mental health, and they're tough to get ahead in.
sawmurai 9y ago
Medium sized company (just shy of 20 devs) plus a lot of sales and other roles. We don't have specific performance reviews, only 1on1s where it's more about identifying personal pain points and defining goals. I think the lack of pressure is the reason why this company is the market leader in its niche, has very low fluctuation and a very high quality code base. I used to work in a sweat shop where we had to justify every 15 minutes spent (via time tracking) ... never. Again.
- softawre 9y ago
  Do you get yearly merit raises? Cost of living?
  - sawmurai 9y ago
    Can't really tell as I have only been on the team for about a year now, but I have been told that you get raises if you ask for them and have enough arguments to justify a raise. What about costs of living? We're based in Zurich, CH.
    - kzisme 9y ago
      Normally (maybe it isn't the norm) employers give a percentage raise annually or bi-annually for to accommodate for the "cost of living going up"
      - occamrazor 9y ago
        Inflation in Switzerland has been negative for the last two years. Most companies did mot apply any cost of living adjustment, but I know some that have reduced base salaries in accordance to inflation.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
_raoulcousins 9y ago
Large company. Performance reviews always come with a non-negotiable raise. The raise + budget issues result in 2-5 year gaps between employees getting them.
tboyd47 9y ago
We are a remote team, so metrics are very important for judging performance. Some of the most important metrics are: time online (huge one), PRs opened, PRs reviewed. There is a formal review process to give employees time to improve performance before an action is taken. I find that even with all these formalities, actions tend to be totally up to the subjective judgment of management, just like any other company. Companies are not legally bound to abide by the rules of their own HR department -- HR is mainly there to provide an illusion of objectivity. In a conflict between leadership and rank-and-file workers, HR will always side with leadership. "Whose food I eat, his song I sing."
- rorykoehler 9y ago
  Why is time online big (assuming more means better)? I do remote too and I would never consider that to be important as long as the work gets done.
  - tboyd47 9y ago
    If you're employed full-time, the expectation is that you're giving your employer roughly 40 hours a week. Nobody can code continuously for 8 hours a day and be productive, but just being available is the bare minimum you can do to be considered "working." I've never heard anyone get cool points at our company for being online more than 8 hours a day, but being online less than that (without reason) is definitely frowned upon.
    - sidlls 9y ago
      I don't see the point: it seems like the company you're at is more or less putting the infrastructure cost (rent, internet) on its employees and otherwise treating them as though they ought to be working as if on-premises in a "butts in the seat" style.
    - subway 9y ago
      Seems like a great way to motivate employees to keep slack open while remaining totally unengaged...
dboreham 9y ago
We stopped doing them a number of years ago after a discussion between management and HR where we all came to the conclusion they were not beneficial.
- mabbo 9y ago
  So how do you decide on promotions, bonuses, raises, etc? All of that has to happen via some process. If you're not doing any kind of performance reviews then you're allowing managers to do it arbitrarily.
  - dboreham 9y ago
    There is a process, driven by actual reality rather than the (in my experience) highly artificial formal performance review process. fwiw when I worked as a manager in big companies, HR always told us that raises didn't depend on performance reviews...
    - softawre 9y ago
      So what is the process? That's the crux of this question.
      - dboreham 9y ago
        People talking to each other.
cnp 9y ago
We do a 1-5 point based system bi-yearly, but I'm actually wondering how people respond to under performing coworkers. I feel weighed down a bit because a review is coming up and I can't imagine giving said person more than a 2, but he is also a nice guy and tries very hard while simultaneously making a mess of most things. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. We're typically asked to discuss negative feedback with managers beforehand and it's important to note that these reviews are not anonymous.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  If a person is congenial and dependable there's usually a suitable niche in any large enough org. The sweet spot is where things are stable and include domain knowledge but aren't automatable yet. Good team players that will get along with people and keep things running are very worthwhile in my opinion. Not everyone need to be able to invent their own crypto currency from scratch. If the problem is more severe, like an inability to code at all, then they might just be in the wrong line of work.
  - softawre 9y ago
    Well said. I have found such positions for people like this twice now in my career.
  - cnp 9y ago
    Thank you -- this is great advice and I'm going to try to formulate it in my response.
canadiancreed 9y ago
Have had two since I started at the place I'm at now. It's basically very nebulous "you're doing ok/you're not doing well in x" type reviews that they get from the departments you're contracted out too. Recommendations are usually "keep doing what you're doing/do more work/do work faster". You provide feedback forms for how you feel youre doing in various areas, but they're effectively useless as its the managers rebuttal that holds all the weight. There's rumours of career planning being integrated into the mix, but that's apparently been on the table for years with no change. Had an associate of mine at the same company two weeks ago get a performance review (more of a contract since he had to sign it), that said he had to improve performance in a month or he'd be fired. The reasons? Too slow/too low quality, but no specific measurable metrics to meet that he'd be able to use to keep his job when re-evaluation comes up in a month. Needless to say, performance evaluations aren't given a lot of thought here. Wish they were.
mabbo 9y ago
The media have been very critical of Amazon's review process, partially fairly, but mostly not. At the end of every year, I picked 5-10 people I wanted feedback from- teammates, people I've worked closely with, or people I genuinely wanted to get opinions from. They'd each receive an email that I'd requested their feedback and I'd receive around 10 requests for feedback from everyone who asked for mine. The only mandatory one: everyone reviews their boss. As well, at any time throughout the year, "Anytime" feedback of an identical nature could be sent in. Usually, I sent these when someone had done something amazing and I worried I'd forget it before review time, or I don't work with them often. Important to note: I can't ever read feedback given to me. I don't even know if anyone I requested feedback from actually gave it or not. Each review itself took a lot of time to write, 20 to 60 minutes was normal for me. Everything was asked to be phrased in this way: Situation (what's the background on what happened?), Behavior (what did the person do?), Impact (what was the outcome, effect, etc?). You were expected to give a few good examples and a few bad examples. At the end of all of this review writing, my manager would read through all of my feedbacks, and compile them into a single overall review with the common themes from many reviews. Downside: bad managers exist. Here's one person who makes the entire decision and he's the only one reading your reviews. That's a lot of power and you need to trust your manager not to abuse it. Also, that feedback is anonymous to you. If someone is trying to sabotage you, you'd never know- but your manager would, as they can read who sent it. Upside: if you're into personal growth, an annual review is candy. Here's an aggregate view of where you need to do better. With a good manager filtering out bullshit and finding the real patterns that matter, you got so much out of this. On the other hand, it took like 2 days to write reviews, and you'd lose your manager for a week or two while he read and compiled. Of course, I say all this and should be using past tense: due in large part to the media complaining that Amazonians are encouraged to "rat each other out", and that the feedback system was actually a toxic part of the culture, the company got rid of it all. Now you can only say short, nice things about each other and your manager has even more power that he'll never have to justify. It was good while it lasted.
- Blackstone4 9y ago
  Ctl-V from above: I know someone who works at Amazon just out of college.... out of 50 that started in June 17, they have 7 left... every week, people get rated and given a score out of 100%....every so often people are let go
debacle 9y ago
Twice a year we do reviews. I have some KPIs I collect for my team, but most managers don't. We also have the standard HR matrix of 1-5 scaling, but I think it's actually quite effective at providing a framework. Employees do self-assessments, then managers do assessments, then you meet for your review. The review is more about being on the same page + communicating future expectations.
Blackstone4 9y ago
I know someone who works at Amazon just out of college.... out of 50 that started in June 17, they have 7 left... every week, people get rated and given a score out of 100%....every so often people are let go
zhte415 9y ago
Fortune 500s... Rating 1 - 5 (1 best, 5 worst). Management required to restrict to rating quotas. These kick-in at a span-of-control level of around FTE>50, and below that at the span-of-control manager to manage. For some departments there's increased flexibility. Some managers who really don't see the reason for filling their quota of 'good' (3) sometimes trade with other managers. 1: ~3-5% 2: ~23-25% 3: ~50-60% 4-5: rest. Formal performance reviews done annually, with interim (6 month) review. Now is 6 month stage. 1-1s on a bi-weekly basis, always documented. Formal performance review an opportunity to highlight and push to one's manager what they may have forgotten or fell from their consciousness.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
kohnke 9y ago
Hey I’m Bas Kohnke, YC S14 alum and CEO of Impraise (https://impraise.com https://impraise.com), a feedback based performance management solution. Having worked with different types of companies to revamp their performance management processes, I’d be happy to share some of our thoughts and experiences. Internally, we run quarterly 360 degree reviews based on 3 questions: what should this person, continue, stop, and start doing. Each person comes up with their own goals and projects which they’re evaluated on. In between reviews we share real-time feedback so that people always know where they stand and what they can do to improve - in this way review results are never a surprise. Team leads also hold regular 1-on-1s and check-ins with each team member (at least twice a month). A few things we’ve learned: - Simply prompting people to share more feedback isn’t enough. Education on how to formulate actionable feedback and how to take and internalize received feedback is essential for it to actually be effective - Strengths based feedback[1] is highly motivating - Reviews should always be followed up with 1-on-1 conversations during which a development plan is formed - Continuous feedback throughout the year is essential to keep everyone on track and ensure that people aren’t blindsided during reviews - Continuous and 360 degree feedback can help combat bias[2] in performance reviews - If reviews are results based, goal-setting should always include equal input from the individual and their team lead There’s not a one size fits all approach to performance management, yet so many companies try to fit their organization into a standard model. Many companies are now customizing their own processes, picking and choosing the elements that work best for their size, industry, culture and the specific pains they want to solve. For example: - Ratings vs ratingless reviews - Anonymity vs non-anonymous reviews - Reviews linked to compensation decisions vs reviews focused solely on development - Companies allowing people to choose their own reviewers - Results vs competency based reviews For advice on the different performance management trends we’ve seen working, feel free to reach out to us. [1] https://blog.impraise.com/360-feedback/constructive-feedback-that-doesnt-kill-motivation-performance-review https://blog.impraise.com/360-feedback/constructive-feedback... [2] https://blog.impraise.com/360-feedback/4-factors-hurting-your-performance-appraisals-performance-review https://blog.impraise.com/360-feedback/4-factors-hurting-you...
kzisme 9y ago
Currently they don't exist - I've asked for a yearly one, but I suppose they haven't found time to give me a review. I've been at my current position (C# Dev) for almost a year and a half full time and I worked part time for almost a half a year. This seems to be far from normal, but since this is my first job out of school I really just want to see: - If I'm performing to standard (Adding value) - which I think I am. - If raises are a thing at this company or in general with reviews. We seem to be shifting towards a more I guess you could call it an "agile" approach (due to our PM). Daily standup meetings talking about what we will focus on for that day, allocate time for it, and report back the next day.
- ultimateedition 9y ago
  You should really insist on a review. If you don't get feedback on how you're doing in your career, it's at your expense. My company has no formal process, I still force a review every year. Also, I believe you should ask for a raise every year. Even if you've completely stagnated professionally, your salary is decreasing continuously with inflation. Companies seem to take advantage of introverted people who are too afraid to speak up about perfectly reasonable requests, like clarifying your performance and goals. It definitely sounds like you're in that boat.
  - kzisme 9y ago
    I've reached out via email 2-3 times and twice in person. At a _very_ informal meeting (about a project) I had mentioned it as well on 6/29, but nothing has been said to me since. I'm not terribly sure how to go about forcing the issue when managers are unable to fit time into their schedule for me. I wouldn't consider myself completely introverted, but I don't want to seem needy (ie: cutting into other people's busy days/schedules) Hopefully I hear something back soon, but I'm not holding my breath.
random098756 9y ago
At Microsoft, (so the throwaway account). In theory: peer review + manager comment on : your work, how you help others, how you reuse work done by other. The reality: peer review is quite useless (that can help manager to give examples feedback but nothing more). Manager's opinion on your work is the only thing. So a big theorical system with bunch of HR documentation but a terrible / useless process at the end.
mvpu 9y ago
I have used this method at every startup I worked for. It will only work for companies that want to hire and keep good engineers. When you join the company, your manager will lay out your strengths and areas to improve to get to the next level (in a direction you want to go) in the very first meeting. Then, she meets with you every quarter and refines the vision for growth. Between those meetings, she'll create opportunities for you to challenge yourself, shine, and grow. That's it. All we care about is ownership, accountability, and leadership -- and your peers will keep you in check. Our job as leaders is to remove speed brakers and avoid pot holes. I can't think of a better way than this -- "performance" reviews are meaningless.
qbert 9y ago
It doesn't. You may ask how then do they do raises? Largely, they don't. The only way they manage to attract and keep people for at least a short period (average tenure is short) is through the ever increasing value of the stock options. Those are only awarded when you first join however so for those who do manage to hold on for 4 years until they fully vest there is zero incentive to stay longer. This is a major fintech company.

77 points by maruhan2 9y ago

Share your company's performance review methods (or even link to your performance review forms), and your thoughts on them.

ikurei 9y ago

A related question: Should you do them? They don't seem useful in tiny companies, where you can just see how everyone is doing, apart from informal "What is worrying you" conversations. How big a company you have to be for them to be useful/necessary?

humanrebar 9y ago
It's hard not to have some sort of review process if you want to be able to fire someone. If anyone challenges their dismissal for performance reasons, you'll want a record of the "conversations" (1) you had. This is why a lot of review processes include some sort of sign-off by the parties involved. (1) Scare quotes around "conversations" because I've never seen management approach an underperforming employee and then realize that they had a big part in that. Conversations tend to be more two-way than that.
- davidvanleeuwen 9y ago
  In our situation, which is a relatively small company, it's used to keep people energized, focused and well... happy. Without it, we had regular team meetings where people talked about frustrations they had (and it exploded at times). I don't think having it around as way to fire someone is the right approach.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    I'm a huge fan of more informal one-on-one meetings. To the point where I will consider a move if I'm not getting enough time with my management. I don't consider those "performance reviews" though.
marssaxman 9y ago
I have found that the existence of a formal performance review program is a good proxy for a company's structure having grown and/or calcified to the point that I would no longer be happy to work there. If the startup I'm currently working for someday grows to that point, I'll take it as my cue to start looking for another startup.

gbrown_ 9y ago

I highly recommend checking out Bryan Cantrill's talk from Surge 2013 - Leadership Without Management: Scaling Organizations by Scaling Engineers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGkVM1B5NuI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGkVM1B5NuI

ndh2 9y ago
NSFW even with headphones due to some really funny moments.

dan00 9y ago

If you've performance reviews, then you also most likely have some kind of metric, and if you've a metric people will start to game it. A colleague of mine always said: you get what you measure.

gaius 9y ago
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart's_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart's_law
rootlocus 9y ago
Management at my company really likes to use jira estimation points as a metric, which is why I always argue for more points and occasionally snatch low hanging fruits (overestimated simple tasks). I'm aware it's stupid, which is why I always point it out, but nobody seems to care. I was the "most productive employee of the year" last year and while I didn't cheat by any definition of the word, it certainly did affect my priorities.
- throwaway413 9y ago
  This. In fact, at one of the last companies I was at, an agency of about 20, devs were grouped into small teams (1-5) to work on different projects. While we used Jira points - these internal teams had different measurements regarding point count. When I brought it up to various PMs and execs, I got the same answer - "that's the way it's supposed to work." And they used these point counts and burndowns to analyze performance of each dev in comparison with the rest of the team as a whole! So if you estimated 1 point for your story, but some other dev estimated 5 for their story, and they are essentially the same tasks just on different projects - that developer is 5x as productive as you are by their record.

rootlocus 9y ago

My company uses quarterly reviews. Here are the metrics my company uses to review each developer: 1. We have an in-house developed tool that tracks git and mercurial commits and calculates the test coverage and code quality for each individual developer. 2. We use jira to track the number of points each developer burns (points are shared between developer, reviewer and QA). We also track the number of bugs each developer introduces because closing a bugfix is not possible without first assigning the developer who introduced the bug to the jira task. 3. We use peer reviews where each team member rates each other team member on a scale from 1 to 5 (3 being considered sufficient) on aspects like availability, communication, reliability and result orientation. 4. Team leaders offer subjective input on each team member. Of course, many of the metrics will be skewed or won't reflect the reality, which is why the team lead has the right to make adjustments to the final mark. This being said, one of my colleagues and friend was "forced" to quit the company because he scored really low on the jira burn rate metric. He was given a tremendously huge task which nobody cared to properly estimate and break into smaller tasks. As a result he spent 6 monts working on the equivalent of 2 weeks of estimation points. The management (including the team lead which is otherwise a great leader and an awesome person) didn't want to assume any blame for this.

kkanojia 9y ago
"one of my colleagues and friend was "forced" to quit the company because he scored really low on the jira burn rate metric" This sounds totally insane. I Cannot believe this happens in real world.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  It sounds like justification for a decision made for less quantitative reasons. Managers don't say, "So let's see who's the worst performer... it's Tom! Weird, he seems to be one of my best developers. Oh, well! The metrics say he's the worst. Off to fire Tom!"
  - msingle 9y ago
    Not in general, but I'm sure there are some that might.

davidvanleeuwen 9y ago

Although we try to stay away from "creating a process" for everything, we've gradually implemented a way for people to give feedback more organically. The thing is, it's not the tool, form or questions you hand out - it's how people use them and think about them. Over a period of time we started using Impraise (impraise.com), although it's not the best tool - it helps people to force to take the time and leave there current mindset to focus on something like giving feedback (on an equal base, because some people are just very good at giving feedback and keep on talking, while others are struggling and need to write it down). Every quarter, you review 2 other people. People read it, interpret it and carry on. However, I sit down with them after everyone has filled in the questions on Impraise (which are not the default ones, but they're pretty straightforward, like: "how good is the quality of your colleague's work?"). This information is used as a base to allow me to ask even more questions, like: "do you agree with this statement?" or "what could you do to improve this situation this colleague is describing?”. The result of this conversation are 4 things: 1. self reflection, 2. setting personal goals (which is mostly one of the things from the self reflection, getting more focus/attention than other things, which is not shared within the team), 3. create and/or help out with team goals, something we should improve as a team and shared within the team, 4. feedback on the process itself. These results are written down as notes and then reflected on the next time we sit down. We have some other tools, methods and things in place to have more of a continuous feedback loop - but it remains a living thing, rather than a set in stone method. If you have questions, you're always welcome to contact me :-)

kohnke 9y ago
Hi David, interesting to read your post. My name is Bas Kohnke, co-founder/CEO of Impraise (YC Summer 14). We are always looking for new ways to improve our product, so please feel free to reach me at bas@impraise.com if you are willing to share your experience and ideas. Thanks!

badlucklottery 9y ago

Large company, performance is based almost entirely on feedback from peers and those you report to with check-ins every 6 months. Overall score from 1-5 with a 3 being "meets expectations" and the most common rating by far. The problem is that the feedback from superiors seems to be weighted much higher so the peer feedback is almost useless so don't bother mentoring or helping someone get back in front of their tasking. This leads to a lot of I'm-working-so-hard theatrics instead of actually being efficient/effective and delivering product. Combine this with "suggested targets" (quotas) for the number of people in each 1-5 bin, you end up with the usual stack ranking problem that getting on the shittiest project (and keeping it that way to ward off competition) and making it damn clear to your manager that they can't live without you is the best strategy.

soneca 9y ago
If there was a more balanced weighting between superiors, peers and subortinates ratings, do you think these negatives outcomes would be avoided? I just started at a company that kind of use this system. My first impression is that it is a good system and the weighting seems fair. But I would like to be aware of any potential pitfalls with it (not just for me, but for the company also).
- badlucklottery 9y ago
  >If there was a more balanced weighting between superiors, peers and subordinates ratings, do you think these negatives outcomes would be avoided? Not really because the stack ranking would still turn everything into a knife fight. It might even be worse because people would blame their coworkers for getting another 3 rating instead of everyone being unified in our hatred for upper management and the performance system as a whole. We recently had a big Pres/VP management shakeup and the new crew is supposedly looking into changing the performance reviews but who knows how far that'll go. But they did sort out our crazy hiring requirements almost immediately so fingers crossed that they'll set some more fires before things stabilize. >But I would like to be aware of any potential pitfalls with it (not just for me, but for the company also). My only tip is to find a project lead/manager who didn't drink the kool aid.

drakonka 9y ago

Yes; we have quarterly "check-in" reviews and a larger yearly review where salary is considered. The process consists of peer and self reviews. We used to have a rating system as well where in the yearly review you would get a certain rating out of five options depending on how you did. The rating portion was removed a couple of years ago.

throwaway9ac8 9y ago

Oh don't get me started. Fairly big (>1000 devs) company. Performance reviews are twice a year. In theory: before each cycle, an employee and a manager meet to discuss manager's expectations. If an employee "exceeds expectations" he or she gets a good rating. The rating is then approved and bonus and compensation is determined. In practice: the rating is kind of determined by how employee's work contributed towards "important goals" of the company. This contributes to a deluge of half-assed work pushed into production just before the evaluation begins. Also it of course depends on performance of the other devs. The existence of the curve was never officially acknowledged but it is an open secret that it indeed exists. The evaluation process is extremely opaque and shrouded in mystery. An employee (and his or her manager too) can never be certain that enough work was done for a particular rating as they are subject to correction at the highest levels of hierarchy (rumor has it that the CTO himself approves the final ratings of all developers above certain level). The process is also extremely long (easily exceeds 1.5 months) and taxing for line managers who have to defend their subordinates' ratings against cuts. The meetings between an employee and a manager are very awkward. In theory the manager should discuss career prospects and deliver valuable feedback, but what is the point of delivering feedback on something that happened 5 months ago? Why would you wait for so long to do it? So everyone just goes through the motions during these meetings as quickly as possible. The whole process is very inefficient. Frankly, it stinks. (Personally, I've fared fairly well so it is not an instance of sour grapes). My opinion it that the only reason it exists is because it provides the potential of almost authoritarian control and ample micromanagement opportunities. I wonder, are my experience and feelings somehow special or is it a common thing in our industry?

auxym 9y ago
Wow, I work in a big, non-software-focused, multinational company, in a mechanical engineer role. Your post describes our exact review process. What more, it seems managers always set the expectation high, or vague, that way everyone always get 3/5 (meets expectations). By now I'm almost 100% convinced that there is an official HR guideline that they are not allowed to give higher than 3/5 overall rating.
- 9y ago

wj 9y ago

Would be interested to know what software people use for peer reviews?

softawre 9y ago
Email
- wj 9y ago
  That definitely doesn't meet our anonymity requirement. :)

yttrium 9y ago

I recently moved from a large (40k employees) company to a small one (600). Performance reviews at the large company always involve a lot of paperwork, self reviews, and hoping that your manager gives you good feedback. Reviews are rated from 1-5 where 3 is the midpoint and is considered 'acceptable'. Tbh, I started as an intern there, and I can recall three or four times someone scored 4+ off the top of my head. Getting a 3 was so trivially easy it was almost insulting. Getting a 5 once required a lot of work outside of the office and usually meant you wouldn't be able to get it again the following cycle. Most of these incentive systems are just focused around being the best personal brand manager anyway, because they incentivize employees to sign up for the shittiest projects and then make a lot of noise and throw around a lot of money and bullshit to make sure everyone knows that they're singlehandedly saving the company. At the small company, we mostly do small one on ones, and you set some yearly goals for each fiscal year that you get evaluated against. There aren't any 'metrics' involved, and it seems mostly like it's aggregation of subjective reviews from superiors and coworkers. This approach seems to work well for everyone. We have a really technical developer who doesn't really do the social game (and he's remote) and he does excellent every year. I'm more of a mix (I like to communicate with endusers and so on) and I did well this year too. Frankly, I think the biggest thing is just getting out of big corporate environments. They're tough for mental health, and they're tough to get ahead in.

sawmurai 9y ago

Medium sized company (just shy of 20 devs) plus a lot of sales and other roles. We don't have specific performance reviews, only 1on1s where it's more about identifying personal pain points and defining goals. I think the lack of pressure is the reason why this company is the market leader in its niche, has very low fluctuation and a very high quality code base. I used to work in a sweat shop where we had to justify every 15 minutes spent (via time tracking) ... never. Again.

softawre 9y ago
Do you get yearly merit raises? Cost of living?
- sawmurai 9y ago
  Can't really tell as I have only been on the team for about a year now, but I have been told that you get raises if you ask for them and have enough arguments to justify a raise. What about costs of living? We're based in Zurich, CH.
  - kzisme 9y ago
    Normally (maybe it isn't the norm) employers give a percentage raise annually or bi-annually for to accommodate for the "cost of living going up"
    - occamrazor 9y ago
      Inflation in Switzerland has been negative for the last two years. Most companies did mot apply any cost of living adjustment, but I know some that have reduced base salaries in accordance to inflation.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

_raoulcousins 9y ago

Large company. Performance reviews always come with a non-negotiable raise. The raise + budget issues result in 2-5 year gaps between employees getting them.

tboyd47 9y ago

We are a remote team, so metrics are very important for judging performance. Some of the most important metrics are: time online (huge one), PRs opened, PRs reviewed. There is a formal review process to give employees time to improve performance before an action is taken. I find that even with all these formalities, actions tend to be totally up to the subjective judgment of management, just like any other company. Companies are not legally bound to abide by the rules of their own HR department -- HR is mainly there to provide an illusion of objectivity. In a conflict between leadership and rank-and-file workers, HR will always side with leadership. "Whose food I eat, his song I sing."

rorykoehler 9y ago
Why is time online big (assuming more means better)? I do remote too and I would never consider that to be important as long as the work gets done.
- tboyd47 9y ago
  If you're employed full-time, the expectation is that you're giving your employer roughly 40 hours a week. Nobody can code continuously for 8 hours a day and be productive, but just being available is the bare minimum you can do to be considered "working." I've never heard anyone get cool points at our company for being online more than 8 hours a day, but being online less than that (without reason) is definitely frowned upon.
  - sidlls 9y ago
    I don't see the point: it seems like the company you're at is more or less putting the infrastructure cost (rent, internet) on its employees and otherwise treating them as though they ought to be working as if on-premises in a "butts in the seat" style.
  - subway 9y ago
    Seems like a great way to motivate employees to keep slack open while remaining totally unengaged...

dboreham 9y ago

We stopped doing them a number of years ago after a discussion between management and HR where we all came to the conclusion they were not beneficial.

mabbo 9y ago
So how do you decide on promotions, bonuses, raises, etc? All of that has to happen via some process. If you're not doing any kind of performance reviews then you're allowing managers to do it arbitrarily.
- dboreham 9y ago
  There is a process, driven by actual reality rather than the (in my experience) highly artificial formal performance review process. fwiw when I worked as a manager in big companies, HR always told us that raises didn't depend on performance reviews...
  - softawre 9y ago
    So what is the process? That's the crux of this question.
    - dboreham 9y ago
      People talking to each other.

cnp 9y ago

We do a 1-5 point based system bi-yearly, but I'm actually wondering how people respond to under performing coworkers. I feel weighed down a bit because a review is coming up and I can't imagine giving said person more than a 2, but he is also a nice guy and tries very hard while simultaneously making a mess of most things. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. We're typically asked to discuss negative feedback with managers beforehand and it's important to note that these reviews are not anonymous.

humanrebar 9y ago
If a person is congenial and dependable there's usually a suitable niche in any large enough org. The sweet spot is where things are stable and include domain knowledge but aren't automatable yet. Good team players that will get along with people and keep things running are very worthwhile in my opinion. Not everyone need to be able to invent their own crypto currency from scratch. If the problem is more severe, like an inability to code at all, then they might just be in the wrong line of work.
- softawre 9y ago
  Well said. I have found such positions for people like this twice now in my career.
- cnp 9y ago
  Thank you -- this is great advice and I'm going to try to formulate it in my response.

canadiancreed 9y ago

Have had two since I started at the place I'm at now. It's basically very nebulous "you're doing ok/you're not doing well in x" type reviews that they get from the departments you're contracted out too. Recommendations are usually "keep doing what you're doing/do more work/do work faster". You provide feedback forms for how you feel youre doing in various areas, but they're effectively useless as its the managers rebuttal that holds all the weight. There's rumours of career planning being integrated into the mix, but that's apparently been on the table for years with no change. Had an associate of mine at the same company two weeks ago get a performance review (more of a contract since he had to sign it), that said he had to improve performance in a month or he'd be fired. The reasons? Too slow/too low quality, but no specific measurable metrics to meet that he'd be able to use to keep his job when re-evaluation comes up in a month. Needless to say, performance evaluations aren't given a lot of thought here. Wish they were.

mabbo 9y ago

The media have been very critical of Amazon's review process, partially fairly, but mostly not. At the end of every year, I picked 5-10 people I wanted feedback from- teammates, people I've worked closely with, or people I genuinely wanted to get opinions from. They'd each receive an email that I'd requested their feedback and I'd receive around 10 requests for feedback from everyone who asked for mine. The only mandatory one: everyone reviews their boss. As well, at any time throughout the year, "Anytime" feedback of an identical nature could be sent in. Usually, I sent these when someone had done something amazing and I worried I'd forget it before review time, or I don't work with them often. Important to note: I can't ever read feedback given to me. I don't even know if anyone I requested feedback from actually gave it or not. Each review itself took a lot of time to write, 20 to 60 minutes was normal for me. Everything was asked to be phrased in this way: Situation (what's the background on what happened?), Behavior (what did the person do?), Impact (what was the outcome, effect, etc?). You were expected to give a few good examples and a few bad examples. At the end of all of this review writing, my manager would read through all of my feedbacks, and compile them into a single overall review with the common themes from many reviews. Downside: bad managers exist. Here's one person who makes the entire decision and he's the only one reading your reviews. That's a lot of power and you need to trust your manager not to abuse it. Also, that feedback is anonymous to you. If someone is trying to sabotage you, you'd never know- but your manager would, as they can read who sent it. Upside: if you're into personal growth, an annual review is candy. Here's an aggregate view of where you need to do better. With a good manager filtering out bullshit and finding the real patterns that matter, you got so much out of this. On the other hand, it took like 2 days to write reviews, and you'd lose your manager for a week or two while he read and compiled. Of course, I say all this and should be using past tense: due in large part to the media complaining that Amazonians are encouraged to "rat each other out", and that the feedback system was actually a toxic part of the culture, the company got rid of it all. Now you can only say short, nice things about each other and your manager has even more power that he'll never have to justify. It was good while it lasted.

Blackstone4 9y ago
Ctl-V from above: I know someone who works at Amazon just out of college.... out of 50 that started in June 17, they have 7 left... every week, people get rated and given a score out of 100%....every so often people are let go

debacle 9y ago

Twice a year we do reviews. I have some KPIs I collect for my team, but most managers don't. We also have the standard HR matrix of 1-5 scaling, but I think it's actually quite effective at providing a framework. Employees do self-assessments, then managers do assessments, then you meet for your review. The review is more about being on the same page + communicating future expectations.

Blackstone4 9y ago

I know someone who works at Amazon just out of college.... out of 50 that started in June 17, they have 7 left... every week, people get rated and given a score out of 100%....every so often people are let go

zhte415 9y ago

Fortune 500s... Rating 1 - 5 (1 best, 5 worst). Management required to restrict to rating quotas. These kick-in at a span-of-control level of around FTE>50, and below that at the span-of-control manager to manage. For some departments there's increased flexibility. Some managers who really don't see the reason for filling their quota of 'good' (3) sometimes trade with other managers. 1: ~3-5% 2: ~23-25% 3: ~50-60% 4-5: rest. Formal performance reviews done annually, with interim (6 month) review. Now is 6 month stage. 1-1s on a bi-weekly basis, always documented. Formal performance review an opportunity to highlight and push to one's manager what they may have forgotten or fell from their consciousness.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

kohnke 9y ago

Hey I’m Bas Kohnke, YC S14 alum and CEO of Impraise (https://impraise.com https://impraise.com), a feedback based performance management solution. Having worked with different types of companies to revamp their performance management processes, I’d be happy to share some of our thoughts and experiences. Internally, we run quarterly 360 degree reviews based on 3 questions: what should this person, continue, stop, and start doing. Each person comes up with their own goals and projects which they’re evaluated on. In between reviews we share real-time feedback so that people always know where they stand and what they can do to improve - in this way review results are never a surprise. Team leads also hold regular 1-on-1s and check-ins with each team member (at least twice a month). A few things we’ve learned: - Simply prompting people to share more feedback isn’t enough. Education on how to formulate actionable feedback and how to take and internalize received feedback is essential for it to actually be effective - Strengths based feedback[1] is highly motivating - Reviews should always be followed up with 1-on-1 conversations during which a development plan is formed - Continuous feedback throughout the year is essential to keep everyone on track and ensure that people aren’t blindsided during reviews - Continuous and 360 degree feedback can help combat bias[2] in performance reviews - If reviews are results based, goal-setting should always include equal input from the individual and their team lead There’s not a one size fits all approach to performance management, yet so many companies try to fit their organization into a standard model. Many companies are now customizing their own processes, picking and choosing the elements that work best for their size, industry, culture and the specific pains they want to solve. For example: - Ratings vs ratingless reviews - Anonymity vs non-anonymous reviews - Reviews linked to compensation decisions vs reviews focused solely on development - Companies allowing people to choose their own reviewers - Results vs competency based reviews For advice on the different performance management trends we’ve seen working, feel free to reach out to us. [1] https://blog.impraise.com/360-feedback/constructive-feedback-that-doesnt-kill-motivation-performance-review https://blog.impraise.com/360-feedback/constructive-feedback... [2] https://blog.impraise.com/360-feedback/4-factors-hurting-your-performance-appraisals-performance-review https://blog.impraise.com/360-feedback/4-factors-hurting-you...

kzisme 9y ago

Currently they don't exist - I've asked for a yearly one, but I suppose they haven't found time to give me a review. I've been at my current position (C# Dev) for almost a year and a half full time and I worked part time for almost a half a year. This seems to be far from normal, but since this is my first job out of school I really just want to see: - If I'm performing to standard (Adding value) - which I think I am. - If raises are a thing at this company or in general with reviews. We seem to be shifting towards a more I guess you could call it an "agile" approach (due to our PM). Daily standup meetings talking about what we will focus on for that day, allocate time for it, and report back the next day.

ultimateedition 9y ago
You should really insist on a review. If you don't get feedback on how you're doing in your career, it's at your expense. My company has no formal process, I still force a review every year. Also, I believe you should ask for a raise every year. Even if you've completely stagnated professionally, your salary is decreasing continuously with inflation. Companies seem to take advantage of introverted people who are too afraid to speak up about perfectly reasonable requests, like clarifying your performance and goals. It definitely sounds like you're in that boat.
- kzisme 9y ago
  I've reached out via email 2-3 times and twice in person. At a _very_ informal meeting (about a project) I had mentioned it as well on 6/29, but nothing has been said to me since. I'm not terribly sure how to go about forcing the issue when managers are unable to fit time into their schedule for me. I wouldn't consider myself completely introverted, but I don't want to seem needy (ie: cutting into other people's busy days/schedules) Hopefully I hear something back soon, but I'm not holding my breath.

random098756 9y ago

At Microsoft, (so the throwaway account). In theory: peer review + manager comment on : your work, how you help others, how you reuse work done by other. The reality: peer review is quite useless (that can help manager to give examples feedback but nothing more). Manager's opinion on your work is the only thing. So a big theorical system with bunch of HR documentation but a terrible / useless process at the end.

mvpu 9y ago

I have used this method at every startup I worked for. It will only work for companies that want to hire and keep good engineers. When you join the company, your manager will lay out your strengths and areas to improve to get to the next level (in a direction you want to go) in the very first meeting. Then, she meets with you every quarter and refines the vision for growth. Between those meetings, she'll create opportunities for you to challenge yourself, shine, and grow. That's it. All we care about is ownership, accountability, and leadership -- and your peers will keep you in check. Our job as leaders is to remove speed brakers and avoid pot holes. I can't think of a better way than this -- "performance" reviews are meaningless.

qbert 9y ago

It doesn't. You may ask how then do they do raises? Largely, they don't. The only way they manage to attract and keep people for at least a short period (average tenure is short) is through the ever increasing value of the stock options. Those are only awarded when you first join however so for those who do manage to hold on for 4 years until they fully vest there is zero incentive to stay longer. This is a major fintech company.