3 ms·

I think it's good to sit and talk about performance and work every now and then, I don't think it's good to write things down and put them into a system for yea

by kfk 11y ago

I think it's good to sit and talk about performance and work every now and then, I don't think it's good to write things down and put them into a system for years. Also, I think it's horrible to have things like OLR where "leaders" sit and talk about you and how well you do (from below to above expectations). The thing is, most managers are bad, especially the middle ones, and their opinions about their reports tend to be bad and flawed. Managers get overly excited about extroverted people and the introverted struggle because they don't show "leadership skills". However, in many fields (i.e. mine in finance), you need a high % of introverted people because they are the ones that usually perform the work, while extroverted spend time socializing and "networking". This whole situation creates a continuous incentive to game the system - instead of doing your job, you spend time working out ways to game the reviews (there are many, the classic is when you are indispensable for some mission critical tasks). The result of this is that you will get politicians at the top, those that game better the system, instead than results. It's not easy, but definitely performance reviews and OLRs are not the answer. I think 1:1's are a good idea, because they happen more frequently. As for feedback from others than your boss, I think it would make much more sense if that was on the whole team/department, rather than on single individuals (like in OLRs).

zekevermillion 11y ago
The extrovert vs. introvert distinction explains a lot. I'm an introvert, and have always hated reviews, even when I know it's going to be a good review. The best review in my opinion is when I get no response at all -- that's when I know I've done my job, and it just worked. Extroverts seem to enjoy getting "feedback" even when it doesn't matter -- e.g., when there's no raise in it, and there's also no chance of being fired. Unfortunately in most companies, compensation (even that which is nominally based on performance) is not based on performance, but rather on the market. An accurate comp-linked review would go something like: "we decided to give you a 1% raise this year b/c we think that is the minimum necessary to keep you in this job; also we used up our budget to hire this other person, and she needs 10% more than you're making to convince her to leave her other job."
- ild 11y ago
  That is not true; at least in my case. I am an extrovert, and I hate reviews, because I personally like quick, immediate and respectful feedback on the spot, if something goes wrong.
  - zekevermillion 11y ago
    My hypothesis is that people who identify as introverted tend to hate formal reviews more than people who identify as extroverted. I could be wrong, though.
jasode 11y ago
>, I don't think it's good to write things down and put them into a system for years. Because of a litigious labor environment, companies and HR departments are forced to document appraisals and ratings and keep them archived. Part of the reason Ellen Pao failed to convince a jury[1] consisting of 50% women (6 women) was that KPCB had extensive historical documentation contradicting her claims. Even though they've won their case, it shouldn't surprise us if they keep even more documentation on employee evaluations. If companies followed your idea of not writing things down, they'd end up in a situation of "he said, she said". That's a weak defense in a lawsuit. In theory, the employers & employees in America have what's called "at will" employment. Employers can fire for any reason (except for discrimination), and likewise, employees can also quit without giving notice. That's the theory. The reality is different. If you want to fire a "protected class"[2] employee for unacceptable job performance, the worker may try to retaliate and claim discrimination. The "at will" principle gets trumped by lawsuits. The company's defense against protected class workers who think they are impervious to being terminated is to document everything. [1]"Her chief reservation with Pao's case lay in her performance reviews, Malone said. That was also the view of the two other jurors interviewed by Reuters" http://www.businessinsider.com/r-juror-in-gender-lawsuit-sympathized-with-pao-sided-with-kleiner-2015-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/r-juror-in-gender-lawsuit-sym... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
- allochthon 11y ago
  For any who might be swayed by the argument that companies are forced into heavyweight performance review processes in order to protect themselves from the threat of litigation, I'll just add this countervailing consideration: there are a subset of developers (myself included) who consider such performance review systems to be a skunk tied around the neck of the company. I will not go near such companies with a ten-foot pole. I've just seen too many weird outcomes that go back to such processes, and they give off a bit of "big bureaucracy" smell.
pinaceae 11y ago
"The thing is, most managers are bad, especially the middle ones, and their opinions about their reports tend to be bad and flawed. " oh bullshit. unless you make it broader and state: "The thing is, most employees are bad and their opinions about their peers, reports and managers tend to be bad and flawed." or where do you think managers come from? bullshit mountain?
- keithnoizu 11y ago
  It's not as though the second statement is false. Even at Microsoft which has at least a little bit of a hiring bar I saw a ton of mediocrity along side the few generally very bright developers and managers.
- kfk 11y ago
  Nice tone. But if you read my comment you realize I make a point of bad selection, that's where bad management comes from. Also, good managers end up being bad simply because they need to game a broken system to stay afloat. Mine is an opinion, though.

by kfk 11y ago

zekevermillion 11y ago

The extrovert vs. introvert distinction explains a lot. I'm an introvert, and have always hated reviews, even when I know it's going to be a good review. The best review in my opinion is when I get no response at all -- that's when I know I've done my job, and it just worked. Extroverts seem to enjoy getting "feedback" even when it doesn't matter -- e.g., when there's no raise in it, and there's also no chance of being fired. Unfortunately in most companies, compensation (even that which is nominally based on performance) is not based on performance, but rather on the market. An accurate comp-linked review would go something like: "we decided to give you a 1% raise this year b/c we think that is the minimum necessary to keep you in this job; also we used up our budget to hire this other person, and she needs 10% more than you're making to convince her to leave her other job."

ild 11y ago
That is not true; at least in my case. I am an extrovert, and I hate reviews, because I personally like quick, immediate and respectful feedback on the spot, if something goes wrong.
- zekevermillion 11y ago
  My hypothesis is that people who identify as introverted tend to hate formal reviews more than people who identify as extroverted. I could be wrong, though.

jasode 11y ago

>, I don't think it's good to write things down and put them into a system for years. Because of a litigious labor environment, companies and HR departments are forced to document appraisals and ratings and keep them archived. Part of the reason Ellen Pao failed to convince a jury[1] consisting of 50% women (6 women) was that KPCB had extensive historical documentation contradicting her claims. Even though they've won their case, it shouldn't surprise us if they keep even more documentation on employee evaluations. If companies followed your idea of not writing things down, they'd end up in a situation of "he said, she said". That's a weak defense in a lawsuit. In theory, the employers & employees in America have what's called "at will" employment. Employers can fire for any reason (except for discrimination), and likewise, employees can also quit without giving notice. That's the theory. The reality is different. If you want to fire a "protected class"[2] employee for unacceptable job performance, the worker may try to retaliate and claim discrimination. The "at will" principle gets trumped by lawsuits. The company's defense against protected class workers who think they are impervious to being terminated is to document everything. [1]"Her chief reservation with Pao's case lay in her performance reviews, Malone said. That was also the view of the two other jurors interviewed by Reuters" http://www.businessinsider.com/r-juror-in-gender-lawsuit-sympathized-with-pao-sided-with-kleiner-2015-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/r-juror-in-gender-lawsuit-sym... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

allochthon 11y ago
For any who might be swayed by the argument that companies are forced into heavyweight performance review processes in order to protect themselves from the threat of litigation, I'll just add this countervailing consideration: there are a subset of developers (myself included) who consider such performance review systems to be a skunk tied around the neck of the company. I will not go near such companies with a ten-foot pole. I've just seen too many weird outcomes that go back to such processes, and they give off a bit of "big bureaucracy" smell.

pinaceae 11y ago

"The thing is, most managers are bad, especially the middle ones, and their opinions about their reports tend to be bad and flawed. " oh bullshit. unless you make it broader and state: "The thing is, most employees are bad and their opinions about their peers, reports and managers tend to be bad and flawed." or where do you think managers come from? bullshit mountain?

keithnoizu 11y ago
It's not as though the second statement is false. Even at Microsoft which has at least a little bit of a hiring bar I saw a ton of mediocrity along side the few generally very bright developers and managers.
kfk 11y ago
Nice tone. But if you read my comment you realize I make a point of bad selection, that's where bad management comes from. Also, good managers end up being bad simply because they need to game a broken system to stay afloat. Mine is an opinion, though.