3 ms·
"Hello Jane, please have a seat. We need to talk about your productivity. Yes, I know you helped the team through a crunch and delivered the new feature, which
by senko 2y ago
"Hello Jane, please have a seat. We need to talk about your productivity. Yes, I know you helped the team through a crunch and delivered the new feature, which works flawlessly and is loved by our users. And our balance sheet is much healthier after you found that optimization that saves us $1mm/year. We also appreciate that younger teammates look to you for guidance and learn a lot from you.
But you see, the AI scored your productivity at 47%, barely "meets expectations", while we expect everyone to score at least 72%, "exceeds expectations". How is that calculated? The AI is a state of the art proprietary model, I don't know the details...
Anyways, we've got to design a Personal Improvement Plan for you. Here's what our AI recommends. We'll start with the TPS reports..."
- adchurch 2y agoLOL - I shudder at the idea of a manager making HR decisions based solely on this one metric! To be clear we're not claiming this is 1 number to holistically evaluate an entire engineer. Rather we're giving a much more accurate picture of output, which most orgs are already measuring (with terrible accuracy). It should be an important part of the picture but certainly not the whole story! And fwiw I think the scores are pretty transparent - in the platform, you can drill down into any number and see the actual PRs and their output measurements. Of course the underlying model is more complex but unfortunately simpler models are not sufficient to capture the way engineering output works.
- flashgordon 2y agoShudder is a fair reaction. Except the manager is now forced by hr to make a hr decision because that way too level "leadership" wouldnt be culpable!