4 ms·
That really sucks. But also what's the point of even having reviews it if it's going to be years in between them? There doesn't seem to be any upside, but lots
by danek 8y ago
That really sucks.
But also what's the point of even having reviews it if it's going to be years in between them? There doesn't seem to be any upside, but lots of downside
- mdip 8y ago> what's the point of even having reviews if it's going to be years in between them? Unfortunately, I would bet the point is to do exactly the kinds of things that "really sucks" which this individual encountered. I'd hazard a guess that the multi-year review situation isn't consistent, either. It probably is decided "it's review time" when management has decided things aren't going well, so they use the reviews to crap all over staff. I wouldn't be surprised if this review cycle comes immediately before a round of layoffs/redundancies, as well.
- r00fus 8y agoThat sounds like Seagull Management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seagull_manager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seagull_manager
- lskadf93idk 8y agoThe whole experience in hindsight made me realize that annual reviews would be a lot better. Although I deeply empathize with the idea that performance reviews in general are kind of misguided, because you should be getting accurate feedback continuously.