3 ms·
For many reasons, I typically do better with qualitative performance reviews, and I'm usually more critical of myself than my manager. I have first-hand experie
by zamalek 5y ago
For many reasons, I typically do better with qualitative performance reviews, and I'm usually more critical of myself than my manager. I have first-hand experience with exactly the kind of point I believe you might be trying to make, because I've been lucky enough to be managed by people who are genuinely passionate about managing people (and have therefore used qualitative reviews).
The problem is when people disagree on performance, in isolation ("I don't deserve a 3 this quarter") or in relation ("why did X get a promotion instead of me"). Quantitative reviews are essentially your employer covering their ass. People might game the system, but there's a paper trail to back up their actions: "we hired Y, but they had a worse quantitative review than everyone else on the team and so was fired." 'Y' has no reasonable recourse, to sue or whatever.
Quantitative performance reviews are too valuable for labor relations.
- dbt00 5y agoI like the quantitative review for one reason -- people need to know if they're a 2 or not. Too many managers soft pedal concerns about perf and then people get fired 6 months later not ever knowing they were at risk.
- lumost 5y agoThe problem with this approach is that for any individual who says "I don't deserve a 3 this quarter" there is someone who says "I'm a 4 this quarter or I'll look elsewhere". Managers optimize for the (polite) squeaky wheel and have finite promotions/resources too allocate in a given quarter.
- zamalek 5y agoIt seems as though, at Amazon, managers are optimizing their own quantitative performance reviews.