3 ms·

The Problem With Performance Reviews

ChuckMcM 14y ago
Poor Andrey. I'm not being insensitive, he's at his first job (Facebook) after getting his masters out of UMich (12/09) and he's complaining that Performance Reviews suck because they aren't actionable. I wonder if it was the first one he got or if he's had more than one since starting at FB. Either way it seems like a pretty small sample set from which to select. Performance reviews are a tool like a table saw, in the hands of a skilled manager they can help mentor someone to great potential. In the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use them they can do great harm. It doesn't help that the suing your company/manager is popular and so the company goes to great lengths to warn new managers about being too interpretive or too specific. You should, the employee, should get three things out of a performance review. First and foremost is feedback in the context of the previous one, and if you are newly hired in the context of the job that was offered you. The second is an external analysis of your strengths and weaknesses (this can be hard to hear sometimes) and third a discussion about where you are headed. The first part is pretty straight forward, "We hired you, Bob, to be the build master. We measure the quality of the build master by their ability to adapt to new build requirements, achieve rapid turn around of builds, and provide accurate and actionable feedback on problems to the source of those problems so that they are quickly resolved." The job has some requirements, the employee is doing the job, they are either not meeting, meeting, or possibly exceeding, against the execution goals of the job (the stuff that has to get done). Part two is a bit harder, the orthogonal axis to performance is 'fit' which is a combination of how you get things done, and how you react/adapt to changes in the requirements. These vary from job to job but generally they involve group dynamics (can people work with you), ability to make progress in spite of barriers, and your state of mind. Some folks see this as the 'popularity contest' part of a review and it can be, if done poorly, but the real meat is the amorphous concept of teamwork. The third part is a vector for the review after this one. You and the manager agree on what you're good at, where you are most effective, and how that works (or doesn't) with the company. This part can give you a sense of whether or not continuing to work at the company is the right thing for you to do. Its important to remember that a review is a conversation between you and the company. They are telling you what they think of your contribution and what they are looking for in the future, and you are evaluating if you still want to work there. When you are both on the same page its great, when you are on different pages, its painful.

Poor Andrey. I'm not being insensitive, he's at his first job (Facebook) after getting his masters out of UMich (12/09) and he's complaining that Performance Reviews suck because they aren't actionable. I wonder if it was the first one he got or if he's had more than one since starting at FB. Either way it seems like a pretty small sample set from which to select. Performance reviews are a tool like a table saw, in the hands of a skilled manager they can help mentor someone to great potential. In the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use them they can do great harm. It doesn't help that the suing your company/manager is popular and so the company goes to great lengths to warn new managers about being too interpretive or too specific. You should, the employee, should get three things out of a performance review. First and foremost is feedback in the context of the previous one, and if you are newly hired in the context of the job that was offered you. The second is an external analysis of your strengths and weaknesses (this can be hard to hear sometimes) and third a discussion about where you are headed. The first part is pretty straight forward, "We hired you, Bob, to be the build master. We measure the quality of the build master by their ability to adapt to new build requirements, achieve rapid turn around of builds, and provide accurate and actionable feedback on problems to the source of those problems so that they are quickly resolved." The job has some requirements, the employee is doing the job, they are either not meeting, meeting, or possibly exceeding, against the execution goals of the job (the stuff that has to get done). Part two is a bit harder, the orthogonal axis to performance is 'fit' which is a combination of how you get things done, and how you react/adapt to changes in the requirements. These vary from job to job but generally they involve group dynamics (can people work with you), ability to make progress in spite of barriers, and your state of mind. Some folks see this as the 'popularity contest' part of a review and it can be, if done poorly, but the real meat is the amorphous concept of teamwork. The third part is a vector for the review after this one. You and the manager agree on what you're good at, where you are most effective, and how that works (or doesn't) with the company. This part can give you a sense of whether or not continuing to work at the company is the right thing for you to do. Its important to remember that a review is a conversation between you and the company. They are telling you what they think of your contribution and what they are looking for in the future, and you are evaluating if you still want to work there. When you are both on the same page its great, when you are on different pages, its painful.