3 ms·

Aka a blueprint to turn your efficient company into a bloated office politics obsessed enterprise. I have never seen a company with such a structured review pr

Aka a blueprint to turn your efficient company into a bloated office politics obsessed enterprise. I have never seen a company with such a structured review process not have the review process gamed by political players. Especially peer review, that is just asking for gaming. Annual or semiannual reviews are way way too infrequent. Just pull up with the employee when any problems occur. Or have weekly one on ones (props to the article for mentioning this). Just don't what 5 months to ding an employee for an event they no longer remember.

jeffrapp 9y ago
Seen this as well. Does somebody in management really expect leadership roles to sit down every 6 to 12 months, discuss everything their employees have done, and do it objectively? That's a fast track to giving everybody but the absolute worst a 5 out of 5 every time. I'm a big proponent of the one-on-one approach, and giving feedback as needed. I am curious, however, typically the review cycle is correlated with the raise and bonus cycle. How would you go about handling that process with the data points that the review cycle provides, however artificial they may be.
- quantumhobbit 9y ago
  I would ask why is there a set cycle for raises? If an employee is valuable enough for a raise why wait and risk a competitor poaching them before the cycle comes around? That may sound far fetched but my current company has a very rigid and well known cycle and I swear that recruiters know about it. I get way more recruiter calls leading up to raises than afterwards. Good on you for noticing that the annual review data is artificial. I suspect that is why these processes exist. Companies want to base there decisions on data and don't care if that data is meaningless.
  - noitsnot 9y ago
    Some companies are so top heavy and tenured they simply don't care. Executives run the show and they could care less who comes and goes.

jeffrapp 9y ago

Seen this as well. Does somebody in management really expect leadership roles to sit down every 6 to 12 months, discuss everything their employees have done, and do it objectively? That's a fast track to giving everybody but the absolute worst a 5 out of 5 every time. I'm a big proponent of the one-on-one approach, and giving feedback as needed. I am curious, however, typically the review cycle is correlated with the raise and bonus cycle. How would you go about handling that process with the data points that the review cycle provides, however artificial they may be.

quantumhobbit 9y ago
I would ask why is there a set cycle for raises? If an employee is valuable enough for a raise why wait and risk a competitor poaching them before the cycle comes around? That may sound far fetched but my current company has a very rigid and well known cycle and I swear that recruiters know about it. I get way more recruiter calls leading up to raises than afterwards. Good on you for noticing that the annual review data is artificial. I suspect that is why these processes exist. Companies want to base there decisions on data and don't care if that data is meaningless.
- noitsnot 9y ago
  Some companies are so top heavy and tenured they simply don't care. Executives run the show and they could care less who comes and goes.