3 ms·
I think managers are inherently in a bad place to review the performance of individuals in the team below them. They're primarily affected by the mean performan
by etler 13y ago
I think managers are inherently in a bad place to review the performance of individuals in the team below them. They're primarily affected by the mean performance of the team, so if one guy is slacking off and the rest of the team needs to pick up the slack, the manager might not notice. I think peer reviews will be more honest. If a peer is doing next to nothing, or providing little to the team while everyone else is working like crazy, you're in a much better position to see that.
- boomzilla 13y agoI think it is a lot more complicated that just that. The root cause here is there is no easy way to quantify one's contribution to the company (or even a team) in software development. Some other professions are easier to evaluate, e.g. stock traders have their own P/L, lawyers/doctors have their own customer billings, etc. Note that I said "easier", but not necessarily bullet proof, because it still encourages people to optimize for short term goals.
- etler 13y agoThat's definitely the root cause. I'm not saying peer review is the solution, just that if managerial review is the alternative, I think peer review is better.