5 ms·

I've been doing these for almost 2 decades and regardless of the amount of rationalization and propaganda thrown at me, I still believe they are worthless and a

I've been doing these for almost 2 decades and regardless of the amount of rationalization and propaganda thrown at me, I still believe they are worthless and a tool of corporate oppression. These ideas have been borrowed from something everyone should be able to hate equally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-criticism_(Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-criticism_(Marxism%E2%80%.... It doesn't really matter what you write there, as long as it's not negative. If it's negative, it can be used against you. If it's not negative, it can be spun as negative when the external reviewer of the self review adds their comments. It's a tedious exercise with little to no benefit for the employee.

eschneider 4y ago
Yeah, the process is _mostly_ useless, but a 'good' self-review is a handy cheat sheet your your manager and is worth doing well. At the margins, you're "helping them help you."
rrrrrrrrrrrr2 4y ago
Of course, the classic corporate oppression of "hi we're paying you $200,000/yr to write code... could you list out your contributions for the past quarter so we can evaluate your performance?". I find it hard to believe you have 20 years of experience but don't see the point of performance evaluations. Imo it's part of being a professional to be able to answer the question "what are you working on" It's very simple. They pay you, you do work. If they stopped paying you, you'd probably stop working. Why would you expect that if you stop working, they won't stop paying you?
- phailhaus 4y ago
  > Imo it's part of being a professional to be able to answer the question "what are you working on". If they need an end-of-year self review to determine that, something has gone horribly wrong. They already know what I'm working on: they're the ones that assigned me to it, and I report on it regularly in standups. So what's the point of the review? If they don't already know what value I'm bringing, that's a red flag.
  - rrrrrrrrrrrr2 4y ago
    Why would you hire someone who refuses to summarize for you, once or twice a year, just at a high level, what they accomplished. Suppose you hired a plumber who refused out of principle to tell you whether or not they fixed your toilet. That's what I mean by it's professionalism.
    - eppp 4y ago
      I suppose if I hire someone that I would know why I hired them and I would check the toilet to see if it worked, regardless of what the plumber said.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - rrrrrrrrrrrr2 4y ago
        At what frequency would you check? Is polling the toilet really more efficient than receiving a "plumbing complete" event from the plumber?
        kqr 4y ago
        Sure it is. As long as the toilet works when you need it, you (a) don't actually have to check, and (b) the plumber is free to sequence their tasks in an optimal fashion. The message from the plumber is based on the assumption that the default state of things is that the plumber has not done their job and things don't work. If you feel like that's the default state of things, you should choose a different plumber, not ask for notifications about which things don't work.
        rrrrrrrrrrrr2 4y ago
        1. Current (default) state: toilet broke. 2. I call plumber. 3. Plumber fix. 4. New state: toilet work. kqr: "Hi Mr. Plumber, could you let me know when 3-->4 happens. I need to use it once you're done, but I'm busy and don't have time to micromanage or continuously observe your work on the toilet." (plumber's gaze narrows) "No. Fuck you, kqr. Fuck you, I'm not telling you jack shit. I have rights and dignity as a professional." kqr: Wow, what a great plumber. I'd hire that person again.
- mrrsm 4y ago
  > Why would you expect that if you stop working they won't stop paying you? They aren't going to rely on someones self-written review to notice you haven't been working. Chances are your manager could fill this out for you most of the time as they should have a good grasp of what you have been doing in your day to day. Most of the time I can generate a list of what I have worked on via commit messages or ticket names to get a high level idea of what I have been doing. I still feel like my manager may have a better idea of what impact my changes have had then I do in some cases.
- walls 4y ago
  What are these managers getting 400k/year to do if they can't list the accomplishments of their subordinates?
  - rrrrrrrrrrrr2 4y ago
    Well, they can list the accomplishments just fine for their other subordinates, who submitted a non-blank performance review. Just not you.
  - icedchai 4y ago
    Going to meetings?
  - TeMPOraL 4y ago
    But they can, and in some contexts they do - it's just that they may see them differently than you see them. Perf review is a chance to share your own perspective.
    - maximinus_thrax 4y ago
      What happens if the perspectives don't match?
- maximinus_thrax 4y ago
  > Imo it's part of being a professional to be able to answer the question "what are you working on" I do that almost every day during standups and every week during 1:1s. I have no problem with it. What I do have a problem with, is when I'm forced into making judgements about my work. That's for someone who gets paid more than me to do in the corporate context. My opinion about my work and all the other self-reflection stays with me. I don't want to bootstrap their work by coming up with all sorts of ways of rewriting history to match some artificial and arbitrary expectations which are anyway outside of my control. And so is the performance review itself, in the end. Some places even allow you to review what your boss said about your performance review and even 'contest' it. You know what happened when you did that? Literally nothing, except for a checked box saying that the employee disagrees. It's all pretend.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
mhss 4y ago
They're a communication tool, and as such, can be used for good or bad purposes. If you already distrust your manager and organization to a large degree, yeah you won't ever see any value on them, but the problem is the inherent distrust and antagonism. I've had plenty of good career dev chats with my manager (and my reports once I became a manager) following a review. This should be happening all around in 1:1s, but the semester or yearly review is a larger retrospective summary of the work we do, what we're proud of and what we feel could have gone better. If there's no trust however, this exercise is moot. Even if my manager did not read it, writing about it has been valuable to me and makes me realize more clearly what I've done, whether I feel I'm being valued or not, and if it's time for me to move on.

eschneider 4y ago

Yeah, the process is _mostly_ useless, but a 'good' self-review is a handy cheat sheet your your manager and is worth doing well. At the margins, you're "helping them help you."

rrrrrrrrrrrr2 4y ago

Of course, the classic corporate oppression of "hi we're paying you $200,000/yr to write code... could you list out your contributions for the past quarter so we can evaluate your performance?". I find it hard to believe you have 20 years of experience but don't see the point of performance evaluations. Imo it's part of being a professional to be able to answer the question "what are you working on" It's very simple. They pay you, you do work. If they stopped paying you, you'd probably stop working. Why would you expect that if you stop working, they won't stop paying you?

phailhaus 4y ago
> Imo it's part of being a professional to be able to answer the question "what are you working on". If they need an end-of-year self review to determine that, something has gone horribly wrong. They already know what I'm working on: they're the ones that assigned me to it, and I report on it regularly in standups. So what's the point of the review? If they don't already know what value I'm bringing, that's a red flag.
- rrrrrrrrrrrr2 4y ago
  Why would you hire someone who refuses to summarize for you, once or twice a year, just at a high level, what they accomplished. Suppose you hired a plumber who refused out of principle to tell you whether or not they fixed your toilet. That's what I mean by it's professionalism.
  - eppp 4y ago
    I suppose if I hire someone that I would know why I hired them and I would check the toilet to see if it worked, regardless of what the plumber said.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - rrrrrrrrrrrr2 4y ago
      At what frequency would you check? Is polling the toilet really more efficient than receiving a "plumbing complete" event from the plumber?
      - kqr 4y ago
        Sure it is. As long as the toilet works when you need it, you (a) don't actually have to check, and (b) the plumber is free to sequence their tasks in an optimal fashion. The message from the plumber is based on the assumption that the default state of things is that the plumber has not done their job and things don't work. If you feel like that's the default state of things, you should choose a different plumber, not ask for notifications about which things don't work.
        rrrrrrrrrrrr2 4y ago
        1. Current (default) state: toilet broke. 2. I call plumber. 3. Plumber fix. 4. New state: toilet work. kqr: "Hi Mr. Plumber, could you let me know when 3-->4 happens. I need to use it once you're done, but I'm busy and don't have time to micromanage or continuously observe your work on the toilet." (plumber's gaze narrows) "No. Fuck you, kqr. Fuck you, I'm not telling you jack shit. I have rights and dignity as a professional." kqr: Wow, what a great plumber. I'd hire that person again.
mrrsm 4y ago
> Why would you expect that if you stop working they won't stop paying you? They aren't going to rely on someones self-written review to notice you haven't been working. Chances are your manager could fill this out for you most of the time as they should have a good grasp of what you have been doing in your day to day. Most of the time I can generate a list of what I have worked on via commit messages or ticket names to get a high level idea of what I have been doing. I still feel like my manager may have a better idea of what impact my changes have had then I do in some cases.
walls 4y ago
What are these managers getting 400k/year to do if they can't list the accomplishments of their subordinates?
- rrrrrrrrrrrr2 4y ago
  Well, they can list the accomplishments just fine for their other subordinates, who submitted a non-blank performance review. Just not you.
- icedchai 4y ago
  Going to meetings?
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  But they can, and in some contexts they do - it's just that they may see them differently than you see them. Perf review is a chance to share your own perspective.
  - maximinus_thrax 4y ago
    What happens if the perspectives don't match?
maximinus_thrax 4y ago
> Imo it's part of being a professional to be able to answer the question "what are you working on" I do that almost every day during standups and every week during 1:1s. I have no problem with it. What I do have a problem with, is when I'm forced into making judgements about my work. That's for someone who gets paid more than me to do in the corporate context. My opinion about my work and all the other self-reflection stays with me. I don't want to bootstrap their work by coming up with all sorts of ways of rewriting history to match some artificial and arbitrary expectations which are anyway outside of my control. And so is the performance review itself, in the end. Some places even allow you to review what your boss said about your performance review and even 'contest' it. You know what happened when you did that? Literally nothing, except for a checked box saying that the employee disagrees. It's all pretend.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

mhss 4y ago

They're a communication tool, and as such, can be used for good or bad purposes. If you already distrust your manager and organization to a large degree, yeah you won't ever see any value on them, but the problem is the inherent distrust and antagonism. I've had plenty of good career dev chats with my manager (and my reports once I became a manager) following a review. This should be happening all around in 1:1s, but the semester or yearly review is a larger retrospective summary of the work we do, what we're proud of and what we feel could have gone better. If there's no trust however, this exercise is moot. Even if my manager did not read it, writing about it has been valuable to me and makes me realize more clearly what I've done, whether I feel I'm being valued or not, and if it's time for me to move on.