Why do you need to compare across teams? Management often create an elaborate once a year process with peer feedback to justify the lack of action. Even then, n

Why do you need to compare across teams? Management often create an elaborate once a year process with peer feedback to justify the lack of action. Even then, nobody will write truly negative feedback. If you are manager of a team, you see individuals output in the form of PRs, bugs, tickets and team activity. Instead of wasting time on one to one, managers should just review people work. What I often see is a combination of: 1. It is human nature to promote people that you like. People that play the game will gradually get influence and be promoted even if every project they did was total disaster. 2. Underperforming developers are promoted to underperforming managers. This save managers from firing a person and keep team output constant without need to hire another competent developer. 3. Driving organisation change and pushing others to do better is a career suicide. You will be universally disliked as you will highlight other people incompetence and force them to work and make risky decisions. 4. People base salary is not based on performance, there is just no incentive to do well. Main reason why startups are successful is size and stock options distributed to employees.