3 ms·
From what I remember, Microsoft has the employees rank their peers. 360 feedback. That's part of what then poisons the atmosphere, especially since of 10, the s
by lstamour 13y ago
From what I remember, Microsoft has the employees rank their peers. 360 feedback. That's part of what then poisons the atmosphere, especially since of 10, the sucker in last place often/always has to leave. People implicitly then make pacts based often on politics... But at least it's annual rather than quarterly.
- craigyk 13y agoyeah, no system is perfect, but the modifications I suggested I think would address these issues to large extent. For example, I suggested that employees would rank their peers on three scales (good, bad, misused) instead of with "scores". An actual score would hopefully come from aggregating the whole company and doing some analysis. Hopefully by having some smart people try to put together an algorithm that seems "fair". Also, if I remember correctly, MS employees might have had some say in their peer's rank, but then groups scores would be merged with other groups by having managers "calibrate" with each other, which more than likely gives the manager a lot of control in the final outcome.
- squidi 13y agoThis is not a condemnation but people often like to invent perfect employee performance systems, as you have done here, and it is akin to people writing their own cryptography. There is evidence-based research out there - look for papers by Elaine D. Pulakos for example. My understanding is that no system works in and of itself and training managers to get the most out of their people is probably the best thing any firm can do.