4 ms·

I remember working at an organization that essentially made the results of performance reviews open across the team. The rational was that it would help people

I remember working at an organization that essentially made the results of performance reviews open across the team. The rational was that it would help people make sense out of salary figures (which were also open). It did not improve team function and led to a lot of paranoia, fear, and resentment. People keep secrets on some level because they need privacy. If a person is struggling, they often react by withdrawing and don't always appreciate their struggles being brought to attention. Especially when their livelihood is on the line. Everyone's different, but increased openness is not always going to help. Everyone should have the right to privacy in both personal and professional settings. Update: Actually, I think the author of the article must understand all of this because they do call out privacy as necessary and try to distinguish it from what they're calling secrecy. And secrecy seems to basically mean willingly withholding information necessary to properly complete a job. They say this could happen if teams have an antagonistic working relationship. I think it's a useful distinction as I've also seen this happen at a company, more recently than the previous counter example that I gave.

jrapdx3 5y ago
> "...if teams have an antagonistic working relationship" Yes of course a set of people constitute a team if and only if it meets the requirement for teamwork. That is, cooperate via info sharing, work load distribution and other support to get jobs done. Obviously merely assigning random workers to contiguous cubicles in no way constructs a team. That remains true even if a manager is loudly chanting holy corporate verse while pronouncing teamhood upon the hapless crew. This is as it's always been, teamwork is essential for the survival of modern humans. Companies that foster teams, and teamwork among teams, are the ones likely to succeed in the marketplace.
jka 5y ago
I hear what you say, but I'd like to add that as an employee, I'd like the option to make my performance data, salary, etc public -- even if it that is not the organization-wide default. The reactions that people have to their own data being public are partly a result of the current hidden-by-default model. I'm not a great developer: I'm experienced, but I make the same mistakes that any junior would. I'd prefer to share the kind of feedback that I receive and how those discussions proceed, so that juniors can look ahead, learn, and avoid repeating the same mistakes (hopefully leading to a much more advanced cohort of future developers).
- davidgerard 5y ago
  It's literally the law in the US that you can always discuss your salary with your coworkers. Companies sometimes don't understand this, forbid it in writing, and get slapped down by the NLRB.
- davesque 5y ago
  In a perfect world, I would agree. However, people are people and they often feel ashamed or embarrassed about not living up to expectations, whether those expectations are reasonable or not. Forcing someone to process those emotions publicly can be extremely humiliating and can seriously undermine trust building in a relationship. I'm generally in favor of increased salary transparency since it will probably help to level the playing field. My point is that you have to draw the line somewhere. Even making performance review details optional to disclose (as an official policy) might inadvertently create a culture where people look at you sideways as though you have something to hide if you appear as though you're not being forthcoming. On the other hand, I don't think there's generally an expectation at most companies that you shouldn't discuss how things are going for you with your colleagues. That is, of course, as long as you don't seem to be doing an excessive amount of griping and finger pointing in the process.
  - jka 5y ago
    > Forcing someone to process those emotions publicly can be extremely humiliating and can seriously undermine trust building in a relationship. That's an important, accurate observation, thank you for voicing it - understood, I'll take that on board. Emotional support, companionship and other ways to indirectly process the situation (games?) seem like they could be helpful responses in that kind of situation? > Even making performance review details optional to disclose (as an official policy) might inadvertently create a culture where people look at you sideways as though you have something to hide if you appear as though you're not being forthcoming. That does sound very tricky to handle in a transparent environment too. I'm not sure whether I have great responses there other than to set a cultural expectation and understanding about the organization up-front (before applicants join). To be honest, that makes me wonder whether a truly transparent organization should even offer the option for private feedback at all (note that that's a greenfield approach, as opposed to the question of how existing organizations could transition to a more transparent model).

jrapdx3 5y ago

> "...if teams have an antagonistic working relationship" Yes of course a set of people constitute a team if and only if it meets the requirement for teamwork. That is, cooperate via info sharing, work load distribution and other support to get jobs done. Obviously merely assigning random workers to contiguous cubicles in no way constructs a team. That remains true even if a manager is loudly chanting holy corporate verse while pronouncing teamhood upon the hapless crew. This is as it's always been, teamwork is essential for the survival of modern humans. Companies that foster teams, and teamwork among teams, are the ones likely to succeed in the marketplace.

jka 5y ago

I hear what you say, but I'd like to add that as an employee, I'd like the option to make my performance data, salary, etc public -- even if it that is not the organization-wide default. The reactions that people have to their own data being public are partly a result of the current hidden-by-default model. I'm not a great developer: I'm experienced, but I make the same mistakes that any junior would. I'd prefer to share the kind of feedback that I receive and how those discussions proceed, so that juniors can look ahead, learn, and avoid repeating the same mistakes (hopefully leading to a much more advanced cohort of future developers).

davidgerard 5y ago
It's literally the law in the US that you can always discuss your salary with your coworkers. Companies sometimes don't understand this, forbid it in writing, and get slapped down by the NLRB.
davesque 5y ago
In a perfect world, I would agree. However, people are people and they often feel ashamed or embarrassed about not living up to expectations, whether those expectations are reasonable or not. Forcing someone to process those emotions publicly can be extremely humiliating and can seriously undermine trust building in a relationship. I'm generally in favor of increased salary transparency since it will probably help to level the playing field. My point is that you have to draw the line somewhere. Even making performance review details optional to disclose (as an official policy) might inadvertently create a culture where people look at you sideways as though you have something to hide if you appear as though you're not being forthcoming. On the other hand, I don't think there's generally an expectation at most companies that you shouldn't discuss how things are going for you with your colleagues. That is, of course, as long as you don't seem to be doing an excessive amount of griping and finger pointing in the process.
- jka 5y ago
  > Forcing someone to process those emotions publicly can be extremely humiliating and can seriously undermine trust building in a relationship. That's an important, accurate observation, thank you for voicing it - understood, I'll take that on board. Emotional support, companionship and other ways to indirectly process the situation (games?) seem like they could be helpful responses in that kind of situation? > Even making performance review details optional to disclose (as an official policy) might inadvertently create a culture where people look at you sideways as though you have something to hide if you appear as though you're not being forthcoming. That does sound very tricky to handle in a transparent environment too. I'm not sure whether I have great responses there other than to set a cultural expectation and understanding about the organization up-front (before applicants join). To be honest, that makes me wonder whether a truly transparent organization should even offer the option for private feedback at all (note that that's a greenfield approach, as opposed to the question of how existing organizations could transition to a more transparent model).