3 ms·

>The $47 billion Australian software company, which was founded in Sydney in 2002 and floated on the US stock market in 2015, says two-thirds of every performan

>The $47 billion Australian software company, which was founded in Sydney in 2002 and floated on the US stock market in 2015, says two-thirds of every performance review will now have nothing to do with job skills. >Instead, equal weighting will be given to how each of its 3000 employees impacts others on their team, and to how they live the company values. Atlassian says the change will “more fairly measure people on how they bring their whole self to work”. For a company that seems to be catching on to the idea that working at a company might involve being good at working as part of a time, I can't help feel describing that as "having nothing to do with job skills" is probably not the right way of looking at it. In fact, there are some really funny points in this article that point to the bias that this is being met with >Asked if it would be possible for someone who did well in their role to be outscored by someone who did poorly but was more likeable For gods' sakes it is not about being likeable, it's about being able to work productively in a team environment. You aren't going to get a good review by being useless but really good at small talk in the kitcken. It's about being able to perform at the company in a way that positively impacts others whilst getting your own work done. Is is easier to work with someone if they're likeable? Probably. If someone is difficult to work with are they dislikeable? Sure. But stop talking about the side-effects and talk about the actual thing that's important - ability to add value to the company.

always4getpass 7y ago
I think the truth is somewhere in between. I'd much rather work on a company that has a pleasant atmosphere but not insane growth than on a shitty environment grinding my ass off. But ignoring performance completely, that is nuts. Because output and success also bring joy and enhance the atmosphere of teams.
ramblerman 7y ago
> says two-thirds of every performance review will now have nothing to do with job skills. I agree this is poorly worded on their behalf. A better approach would be to reframe team-player, and being somewhat likeable as job skills.
marktangotango 7y ago
You seem to agree with implication that developer performance is measurable, when in fact these management driven annual reviews are a fantasy used to justify someone’s already planned agenda; raises and promotions for those in the in group for example.
kuzehanka 7y ago
> You aren't going to get a good review by being useless but really good at small talk in the kitcken In reality though, this is exactly what happens, and this mindset is exactly what creates entire departments of incompetent but friendly, 'team oriented', well-meaning idiots. These kinds of people are fine for BAU operations (and to be fair that's pretty much all Atlassian now does) but not for outcome focused project driven work. Eventually leadership catches on and creates a dedicated 'get things done' team where this friendly fishpond HR shit doesn't fly and people have to actually pull their weight again.
jacques_chester 7y ago
> I can't help feel describing that as "having nothing to do with job skills" is probably not the right way of looking at it. You'll note those words are not a quotation. They're the journalist's phrasing.
Grue3 7y ago
>You aren't going to get a good review by being useless but really good at small talk in the kitcken. You probably would if you talk to the right people. When performance criteria are not objective, it's easy to fire or retain people at will.

always4getpass 7y ago

I think the truth is somewhere in between. I'd much rather work on a company that has a pleasant atmosphere but not insane growth than on a shitty environment grinding my ass off. But ignoring performance completely, that is nuts. Because output and success also bring joy and enhance the atmosphere of teams.

ramblerman 7y ago

> says two-thirds of every performance review will now have nothing to do with job skills. I agree this is poorly worded on their behalf. A better approach would be to reframe team-player, and being somewhat likeable as job skills.

marktangotango 7y ago

You seem to agree with implication that developer performance is measurable, when in fact these management driven annual reviews are a fantasy used to justify someone’s already planned agenda; raises and promotions for those in the in group for example.

kuzehanka 7y ago

> You aren't going to get a good review by being useless but really good at small talk in the kitcken In reality though, this is exactly what happens, and this mindset is exactly what creates entire departments of incompetent but friendly, 'team oriented', well-meaning idiots. These kinds of people are fine for BAU operations (and to be fair that's pretty much all Atlassian now does) but not for outcome focused project driven work. Eventually leadership catches on and creates a dedicated 'get things done' team where this friendly fishpond HR shit doesn't fly and people have to actually pull their weight again.

jacques_chester 7y ago

> I can't help feel describing that as "having nothing to do with job skills" is probably not the right way of looking at it. You'll note those words are not a quotation. They're the journalist's phrasing.

Grue3 7y ago

>You aren't going to get a good review by being useless but really good at small talk in the kitcken. You probably would if you talk to the right people. When performance criteria are not objective, it's easy to fire or retain people at will.