4 ms·

I do prefer to have formal performance reviews tied to anniversary dates instead of a company wide performance/merit increase cycle. It's almost impossible to

• terravion 9y ago
  Having been a part of large organizations that do it both ways, it is very hard to give objective feedback to large group of staff if it isn't done at the same time. Eventually everyone that isn't a total screw-up earns the "top box" and the performance review becomes meaningless. If everyone is done at the same time and you want to reward your top 10%, the managers are forced to identify who the 10% really are.
  • closeparen 9y ago
    Is your intention to churn the bottom 90% of your organization through inflation and greener pastures elsewhere? It does seem generally the case that if you're not a total screw-up, you expect and can get periodic increases in compensation and responsibility. To deny this to someone is to declare them a total screw-up, because you're signaling to them that they ought to leave for another company or field where they won't have already peaked. Staying in the same role and salary you had when you first entered the workforce doesn't seem like something we can realistically expect from 90% of software engineers. So I'm not sure it's terribly broken just because most people are getting promote-able ratings.
    • dllthomas 9y ago
      You can want to reward your top 10% while giving at least a market-rate adjustment to the next 80% (or whatever).