Hopefully fair performance reviews for software developers(blog.pragmaticengineer.com)
blog.pragmaticengineer.com
Hopefully fair performance reviews for software developers
https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/performance-reviews-for-software-engineers/
20 comments
> If you want performance reviews to actually matter, allow people to set goals that do not always benefit the company. Understand your employees have many different interests and give them space to explore those interests.
I gotta confess, I'm very deeply confused by this.
The company's goal is to develop their staff in ways that benefit the business the company is engaging in, because the purpose of the company is to be successful in that business.
If I'm operating a company that produces bread, no, I'm not going to help you develop your skills in woodworking. Why would I? If you really want to learn professional woodworking, develop those skills on your own time and then go get a job as a woodworker.
Or, accept you work for a company that needs people with skills related to baking bread, and develop your skills accordingly.
Or, alternatively, convince me why your becoming a skilled woodworker is good for my bakery business.
That said: If the company wants skilled bread bakers, they should be providing the time, space, and resources to allow their staff to develop those skills during their time at work. They should not expect people to continue to develop those skills outside of work. That's your time to use as you see fit, including picking up those woodworking skills if that's what's really important to you.
I gotta confess, I'm very deeply confused by this.
The company's goal is to develop their staff in ways that benefit the business the company is engaging in, because the purpose of the company is to be successful in that business.
If I'm operating a company that produces bread, no, I'm not going to help you develop your skills in woodworking. Why would I? If you really want to learn professional woodworking, develop those skills on your own time and then go get a job as a woodworker.
Or, accept you work for a company that needs people with skills related to baking bread, and develop your skills accordingly.
Or, alternatively, convince me why your becoming a skilled woodworker is good for my bakery business.
That said: If the company wants skilled bread bakers, they should be providing the time, space, and resources to allow their staff to develop those skills during their time at work. They should not expect people to continue to develop those skills outside of work. That's your time to use as you see fit, including picking up those woodworking skills if that's what's really important to you.
Both you and OP have made excellent points. I guess the challenge in software is understanding when bread is not bread.
For example, I manage a team of devs. Our stack is React, and one of the devs asks for a course on Vue. Is that relevant? What about Bash, AWS, security, networking, user experience? All these things are relevant and could feasibly help the company.
I think the OP was suggesting we allow people to set goals like this, as opposed to setting goals like “finish project x by April”.
For example, I manage a team of devs. Our stack is React, and one of the devs asks for a course on Vue. Is that relevant? What about Bash, AWS, security, networking, user experience? All these things are relevant and could feasibly help the company.
I think the OP was suggesting we allow people to set goals like this, as opposed to setting goals like “finish project x by April”.
This is how I see it too. Technology is inherently about dynamic navigation of unknowns.
Having your employees laser focused on things the company knows it needs leaves your company with a dearth of information about the landscape around it and how best to navigate those unknowns, while also stifling employee growth at the same time.
I would change the bread analogy from woodworking to flour-making, sandwich-making, chemistry of baking, and engineering of ovens, encouraging creative exploration of things on the edge of the business that could help to grow the business and employees at the same time by providing a better map for steering the business.
Having your employees laser focused on things the company knows it needs leaves your company with a dearth of information about the landscape around it and how best to navigate those unknowns, while also stifling employee growth at the same time.
I would change the bread analogy from woodworking to flour-making, sandwich-making, chemistry of baking, and engineering of ovens, encouraging creative exploration of things on the edge of the business that could help to grow the business and employees at the same time by providing a better map for steering the business.
Yup, totally agreed!
And that's where a) as a professional, you need the ability to advocate for the development of skills if you think the business will see benefit, even if the benefit isn't immediately obvious, and b) as a manager, you should be actively encouraging staff to think this way, and you should have an open mind when a they bring these kinds of ideas to the table.
Personally, I desperately wish my staff were more aggressive about thinking proactively about professional development. Most of the time I have to nag them just to take an hour out of their work week to read a book or something...
And that's where a) as a professional, you need the ability to advocate for the development of skills if you think the business will see benefit, even if the benefit isn't immediately obvious, and b) as a manager, you should be actively encouraging staff to think this way, and you should have an open mind when a they bring these kinds of ideas to the table.
Personally, I desperately wish my staff were more aggressive about thinking proactively about professional development. Most of the time I have to nag them just to take an hour out of their work week to read a book or something...
> Most of the time I have to nag them
You've recognized that you're nagging them. If you're not joking, then it sounds like you need to do the much more difficult and risky job of cultivating and protecting a culture where they feel safely encouraged to do it themselves. Make sure you're taking on the risk that they probably perceive they are taking when they sacrifice that hour of their work week.
You've recognized that you're nagging them. If you're not joking, then it sounds like you need to do the much more difficult and risky job of cultivating and protecting a culture where they feel safely encouraged to do it themselves. Make sure you're taking on the risk that they probably perceive they are taking when they sacrifice that hour of their work week.
You know, you make a really interesting point, here.
I've tried to consistently deliver the message that they have the freedom and protection to take time out for PD, but I've not actually dug into their perceptions to see if I've been successful or if the on-the-ground reality doesn't match what I think is going on...
I think I have a topic for my next 1:1's!
Thanks for the suggestion!
I've tried to consistently deliver the message that they have the freedom and protection to take time out for PD, but I've not actually dug into their perceptions to see if I've been successful or if the on-the-ground reality doesn't match what I think is going on...
I think I have a topic for my next 1:1's!
Thanks for the suggestion!
This might sound silly, but I found that actually buying the book and handing it to the developer was quite effective. They then understood I was serious about them reading it.
Yeah, so first off, not silly at all!
Second, if I have a staff member where we agree that reading a book (or listening to an audio book, or taking a course, etc) is a good idea, we make sure the resource is available for them (there's no way in heck I'd expect a staff member to go out of pocket on a PD resource of any kind).
At that point, they can either expense the thing themselves, or I'll just get it done (especially if they're dragging their feet a bit). One way or another, that book lands on their desk. :)
Second, if I have a staff member where we agree that reading a book (or listening to an audio book, or taking a course, etc) is a good idea, we make sure the resource is available for them (there's no way in heck I'd expect a staff member to go out of pocket on a PD resource of any kind).
At that point, they can either expense the thing themselves, or I'll just get it done (especially if they're dragging their feet a bit). One way or another, that book lands on their desk. :)
> If I'm operating a company that produces bread, no, I'm not going to help you develop your skills in woodworking. Why would I? If you really want to learn professional woodworking, develop those skills on your own time and then go get a job as a woodworker.
Because the bread is stored on shelves, and you use rolling pins and workbenches that could be repaired/built better/designed better, knowledge of structures could help making new bread products, and the tools used in woodworking could have direct applications in making bread, which could save you money or make you better products.
Because the bread is stored on shelves, and you use rolling pins and workbenches that could be repaired/built better/designed better, knowledge of structures could help making new bread products, and the tools used in woodworking could have direct applications in making bread, which could save you money or make you better products.
And this is how you might "convince me why your becoming a skilled woodworker is good for my bakery business".
Well done! :)
Well done! :)
I can completely understand your confusion. Your example is a bit extreme. To give you more specific examples of "things that interest me, but do not (directly) benefit the company":
* The company uses SVN, while I'm interested in learning Git.
* The company uses JQuery and PHP, I'm interested in learning React / Vue / Angular.
* The company is interested in hosting websites on VM's - I'm interested in learning about containers (Docker).
A better example: Let's say you're a bakery.
You want to bake cookies: I want to (on a random, slow, friday afternoon) learn how to bake elephant ears.
You want to produce bread: I want to produce cheesecake.
Your example of bread to woodworking would be more akin to a Web developer working on embedded systems engineering or something way different. Of course that makes sense to do during your off time only.
My examples above are things that could be used by the company I currently work for (git / docker / Angular), but the company chooses not to use these technologies due to various reasons (political, economic, expense, etc). As a result, I can't put that on my "Competency plan" because it does not directly or immediately benefit the company.
Now good managers will allow this. They see the benefit in trying new technologies even if there's no immediate need. But those managers are far and few between. Personally I would love to work with folks who just want to try some cool shit on a boring, slow Friday afternoon.
* The company uses SVN, while I'm interested in learning Git.
* The company uses JQuery and PHP, I'm interested in learning React / Vue / Angular.
* The company is interested in hosting websites on VM's - I'm interested in learning about containers (Docker).
A better example: Let's say you're a bakery.
You want to bake cookies: I want to (on a random, slow, friday afternoon) learn how to bake elephant ears.
You want to produce bread: I want to produce cheesecake.
Your example of bread to woodworking would be more akin to a Web developer working on embedded systems engineering or something way different. Of course that makes sense to do during your off time only.
My examples above are things that could be used by the company I currently work for (git / docker / Angular), but the company chooses not to use these technologies due to various reasons (political, economic, expense, etc). As a result, I can't put that on my "Competency plan" because it does not directly or immediately benefit the company.
Now good managers will allow this. They see the benefit in trying new technologies even if there's no immediate need. But those managers are far and few between. Personally I would love to work with folks who just want to try some cool shit on a boring, slow Friday afternoon.
This seems like a poor example to me. More like a shop that makes wooden chairs and OP wants to learn how to make a nice hardwood desk.
> The only reason performance reviews exist at companies is so they have an established way of firing people.
No. At most companies, the main reason is to have an established way of promoting people. Are people merely performing "at" their level (no promotion) or are they showing clear evidence "above" their level (promotion-worthy)?
In my experience, firing is pretty rare, while a promotion every ~2 yrs to a new level and pay grade is pretty common. (Granted you could often make more by jumping companies.)
Of course there are some companies (especially smaller ones) that tend to hire rather than promote, as they expand. In which case you "promote" yourself by jumping to a new company. But I wouldn't say that's necessarily the norm.
No. At most companies, the main reason is to have an established way of promoting people. Are people merely performing "at" their level (no promotion) or are they showing clear evidence "above" their level (promotion-worthy)?
In my experience, firing is pretty rare, while a promotion every ~2 yrs to a new level and pay grade is pretty common. (Granted you could often make more by jumping companies.)
Of course there are some companies (especially smaller ones) that tend to hire rather than promote, as they expand. In which case you "promote" yourself by jumping to a new company. But I wouldn't say that's necessarily the norm.
> Are people merely performing "at" their level (no promotion) or are they showing clear evidence "above" their level (promotion-worthy)?
Or are they showing clear evidence "above" their level but the manager has not generated enough career capital to put them up as a promotion candidate because promotions are about politics not merit (praise-no-promo)?
Or are they showing clear evidence "above" their level but the manager has not generated enough career capital to put them up as a promotion candidate because promotions are about politics not merit (praise-no-promo)?
Possibly, but I don’t think I would necessarily blame my manager for that. It was the case at my previous two companies until I finally found one where it appears promotion is actually feasible.
Maybe this should be changed to "the only reason performance improvement plans exist."
You forgot 3. You are doing a great job. Push harder and maybe you'll get that promotion next time. (earlier at a budget meeting: no budget for promotions this quarter).
I read through Brian Kernighan's Unix memoir and it had an interesting anecdote about performance reviews. Turns out that Brian was a department head for quite a long time at Bell Labs and at first performance reviews were all "You're doing great work, keep it up!" but eventually someone at corporate added a "areas to improve" section. So for a couple of years he got away with "nothing, great job", but then the upper management came back with "nobody is perfect, you need to fill in that field." And he's like "What would you put down for Dennis Ritchie?"
"CFO: What happens if we train them and they leave? CEO: What happens if we don’t and they stay?"
> 1. You're doing a great job. Keep at it.
>2. You're doing terribly. We are going to start a paper trail to fire you (aka performance improvement plan).
This is exactly why I only rate myself 4 or 5 out of 5 on any review I ever have. Normally I'm a quiet, humble person and maybe a little self-effacing. But in performance reviews, I'm always a stellar employee. I learned a long time ago that an honest, uncompromising self evaluation is little more than a signed admission of guilt. If I could remain silent I would, but if I have to document myself with the disadvantage of not knowing the context it's being sent into, I'm not going to give any other party leverage against me. And putting every employee in that position habitually is a recipe for a dehumanizing and demoralizing interaction
>2. You're doing terribly. We are going to start a paper trail to fire you (aka performance improvement plan).
This is exactly why I only rate myself 4 or 5 out of 5 on any review I ever have. Normally I'm a quiet, humble person and maybe a little self-effacing. But in performance reviews, I'm always a stellar employee. I learned a long time ago that an honest, uncompromising self evaluation is little more than a signed admission of guilt. If I could remain silent I would, but if I have to document myself with the disadvantage of not knowing the context it's being sent into, I'm not going to give any other party leverage against me. And putting every employee in that position habitually is a recipe for a dehumanizing and demoralizing interaction
[deleted]
Either your HR/People team sucks or you're just meeting expectations. If you are exceeding to greatly exceeding expectations and they don't drive your comp either via equity or salary increase faster than that then something is off.
Perf review history is also used by other managers if they want to approve a transfer into their team and used as part of promotion packet considerations. So does matter beyond that too.
Agreed, I once had a team which I gave all good PRs, but was told that we had to fit a curve and these 2 people will start PIP before being let go 3m later.
Wow, I agree with all of your points. I have had the exact same experiences and thoughts. I had to check the username to make sure I didn't write this.
Did you mean to post this a second time?
It is a completely different user.
Based on history, the other one seems to be regurgitating comments.
Based on history, the other one seems to be regurgitating comments.
Those spammers must be at it again.
Edit: if you guys notice accounts doing this, please let us know at [email protected]. Flagging them doesn't really help since the comments themselves are innocuous, it's the spammy duplication that's bad.
Edit: if you guys notice accounts doing this, please let us know at [email protected]. Flagging them doesn't really help since the comments themselves are innocuous, it's the spammy duplication that's bad.
[deleted]
It is posted by a different username.
No, AFAIK I only posted this once.
If confused on why you were asked, another user stole your comment in this same thread.
exposed!
The GGP appears to be the “real” poster of the comment. The other one was posted after.
WrtCdEvrydy(1)
Ditto
This is crap (the current outcomes of performance reviews), and one of the reasons the Technical Leads (me included) are a part of the review process. Managers deal with the non-technical stuff but our job is to help people get the skills they want to derive from their Professional Development Plan and have their process contrasted as part of their review.
I worked at a place where we had peer reviews. You had to select three people to rate you out of five in a number of areas.
One review I got a few fives. They got scrubbed. So I averaged out at three ish. I was told its basically impossible to get a five, so all fives just get discarded. That fours are best you can hope for but even then you have to be exceptional. So most we're expecter to average was a three. Only if yoy were under three was it a problem.
However, the annual pay rise was linked to your score! And when complaining about measly two percent, you are told to get a higher raise you need to average a four....
It was just exhausting and absurd.
One review I got a few fives. They got scrubbed. So I averaged out at three ish. I was told its basically impossible to get a five, so all fives just get discarded. That fours are best you can hope for but even then you have to be exceptional. So most we're expecter to average was a three. Only if yoy were under three was it a problem.
However, the annual pay rise was linked to your score! And when complaining about measly two percent, you are told to get a higher raise you need to average a four....
It was just exhausting and absurd.
> its basically impossible to get a five, so all fives just get discarded.
Did they also say that there's a "talent shortage" and they just can't seem to find developers no matter how hard they try?
Did they also say that there's a "talent shortage" and they just can't seem to find developers no matter how hard they try?
I had the exact same experience, except that I had to do a self-review.
Preface:
In November of that year the org REALLY needed some important work done in a language that I didn't develop in. It was a super large update to a legacy PERL app that had NO TESTS WHATSOEVER. If it wasn't done by a deadline they would have lost their largest contract and very likely have been out of business. Did I mention that this org was part of a fortune 500 company?
Since I was the ONLY developer left at the company who had any idea how things worked they pleaded with me to help them. Sensing opportunity, I rose to the occasion for a month of 60 to 80 hour weeks.
I pulled off the release that would have been the nail in their coffin had it failed.
A couple of months later we had to do self-reviews. It was my first one because for an unknown reason I hadn't received one the year prior.
I was really proud that I'd pulled off the impossible so I gave myself a couple of fives in areas like "works hard" and "teamwork" or something.
Then I had my official review with the C level exec of development, since they still hadn't replaced the director who was my former manager.
He told me that we had to change the fives, because even though they existed the company felt you had to do something reeeeally awesome to get a five.
Then he said fours were not impossible to get, but almost impossible to get, and since he was too busy running the company to really give me a review he'd give me the benefit of a doubt and reset the fives to threes.
Next he knocked a couple of other stats down to twos, saying that I had too many threes.
Then, he said unfortunately my average score was pretty much dead on the company average and that I only qualified for an average 2% raise.
Aaaaand at that moment I realized that performance reviews were nothing more than a dog an pony show for HR to justify giving you a minimum raise, or documenting why you should be fired.
I also realized that there was absolutely no reason to break my neck for them again, and the only way I was gong to improve my situation was to find another job.
Which I did. Securing myself a 40% raise doing 1/2 the work in 25% of the knowledge domain.
Preface:
In November of that year the org REALLY needed some important work done in a language that I didn't develop in. It was a super large update to a legacy PERL app that had NO TESTS WHATSOEVER. If it wasn't done by a deadline they would have lost their largest contract and very likely have been out of business. Did I mention that this org was part of a fortune 500 company?
Since I was the ONLY developer left at the company who had any idea how things worked they pleaded with me to help them. Sensing opportunity, I rose to the occasion for a month of 60 to 80 hour weeks.
I pulled off the release that would have been the nail in their coffin had it failed.
A couple of months later we had to do self-reviews. It was my first one because for an unknown reason I hadn't received one the year prior.
I was really proud that I'd pulled off the impossible so I gave myself a couple of fives in areas like "works hard" and "teamwork" or something.
Then I had my official review with the C level exec of development, since they still hadn't replaced the director who was my former manager.
He told me that we had to change the fives, because even though they existed the company felt you had to do something reeeeally awesome to get a five.
Then he said fours were not impossible to get, but almost impossible to get, and since he was too busy running the company to really give me a review he'd give me the benefit of a doubt and reset the fives to threes.
Next he knocked a couple of other stats down to twos, saying that I had too many threes.
Then, he said unfortunately my average score was pretty much dead on the company average and that I only qualified for an average 2% raise.
Aaaaand at that moment I realized that performance reviews were nothing more than a dog an pony show for HR to justify giving you a minimum raise, or documenting why you should be fired.
I also realized that there was absolutely no reason to break my neck for them again, and the only way I was gong to improve my situation was to find another job.
Which I did. Securing myself a 40% raise doing 1/2 the work in 25% of the knowledge domain.
Catch-22
Is what you're describing what we think of as a "performance review"?
I've found as the other user describes performance reviews to be a largely formalized HR driven process that is disconnected from any real "development plan". At best a development plan is tacked on but the nuts and bolts of any of that is largely determined outside whatever the performance review structure is.
I've found as the other user describes performance reviews to be a largely formalized HR driven process that is disconnected from any real "development plan". At best a development plan is tacked on but the nuts and bolts of any of that is largely determined outside whatever the performance review structure is.
When was the last time you sat down with your spouse or someone else you spent a large portion of your day with and gave them a really fair and objective performance review?
Make sure to frame the negatives along with the positives and use concrete examples: Honey, I liked that casserole but the way you did the dishes could use some work, I found a spot on my glass the next day. I'm hoping you'll improve by Q3.
No. Performance reviews are not how humans are meant to interact. Even slight negatives will be blown out of proportion in peoples minds, that's how we're hard wired.
So why create this drama intentionally in your company? If the person is really bad, then you have an intervention or possibly terminate them, but most people are just okay.
Regular 1:1 meetings should be the only 'performance review' needed, a way to make sure both the manager and subordinate are on the same page about everything.
Make sure to frame the negatives along with the positives and use concrete examples: Honey, I liked that casserole but the way you did the dishes could use some work, I found a spot on my glass the next day. I'm hoping you'll improve by Q3.
No. Performance reviews are not how humans are meant to interact. Even slight negatives will be blown out of proportion in peoples minds, that's how we're hard wired.
So why create this drama intentionally in your company? If the person is really bad, then you have an intervention or possibly terminate them, but most people are just okay.
Regular 1:1 meetings should be the only 'performance review' needed, a way to make sure both the manager and subordinate are on the same page about everything.
I second this one.
I am currently reading the Manager's path and it mentions a lot 1-1s. Like, a lot.
However, let's be honest. A - 1-1 takes time, effort, willingness to do something. Listening, trying to solve a problem, etc. Retaining your employees... Blabla. The more I read it, the more I feel like it's a dream. Reality is:80-20%. 80% is good, 20% is need to improve or try to get rid of. And in the worst case, I hire new people. The good ones will go? Sad. We will see how to prevent such things...
However, the answer is: caring. Performance reviews are just a formal way to do what the first poster has written.
I am currently reading the Manager's path and it mentions a lot 1-1s. Like, a lot.
However, let's be honest. A - 1-1 takes time, effort, willingness to do something. Listening, trying to solve a problem, etc. Retaining your employees... Blabla. The more I read it, the more I feel like it's a dream. Reality is:80-20%. 80% is good, 20% is need to improve or try to get rid of. And in the worst case, I hire new people. The good ones will go? Sad. We will see how to prevent such things...
However, the answer is: caring. Performance reviews are just a formal way to do what the first poster has written.
Speaking as a senior IC with some management experience, I find that 1:1s depend a lot more on the report than on the manager.
I had exactly one really good manager in the past who could extract value from our 1:1s when I wasn't actively helping make the 1:1s productive, and, as a manager, I sucked at getting value out of the 1:1s.
Today, as an IC again, I'm in a place where I can make the 1:1s valuable by driving the conversation myself — by preemptively telling my manager what my concerns are, and what I need from him, and I achieve this largely by saying the things my old manager knew how to coax out of me, and the things I wished my reports had told me.
I had exactly one really good manager in the past who could extract value from our 1:1s when I wasn't actively helping make the 1:1s productive, and, as a manager, I sucked at getting value out of the 1:1s.
Today, as an IC again, I'm in a place where I can make the 1:1s valuable by driving the conversation myself — by preemptively telling my manager what my concerns are, and what I need from him, and I achieve this largely by saying the things my old manager knew how to coax out of me, and the things I wished my reports had told me.
I've always found it a bit difficult to fully trust the manager because of the power differential. So that way I've often not done a lot of talking driving the conversation.
The power differential is often not nearly as pronounced as you think (this definitely becomes much more noticeable as you become more senior).
Also, when I say that you should be talking about your concerns and being proactive, I mean that, with my manager, 1:1s revolve around topics like me expressing concern that, as upper management pushes for senior ICs to spend more time working on company-level (as opposed to team-level) work, the more junior members of the team are getting less support from me than they should, and we talk about how to manage that, by reprioritising hiring or by pushing back on some less-important initiatives. We talk about how much babysitting our intern will require over the next few weeks and who'll handle it, and about him asking for my opinion/advice on technical topics his other teams are dealing with that smell weird and he wants a second opinion, or me asking his opinion/advice on whether I'm striking the right balance between individual contributions and supporting others. That sort of thing.
Also, when I say that you should be talking about your concerns and being proactive, I mean that, with my manager, 1:1s revolve around topics like me expressing concern that, as upper management pushes for senior ICs to spend more time working on company-level (as opposed to team-level) work, the more junior members of the team are getting less support from me than they should, and we talk about how to manage that, by reprioritising hiring or by pushing back on some less-important initiatives. We talk about how much babysitting our intern will require over the next few weeks and who'll handle it, and about him asking for my opinion/advice on technical topics his other teams are dealing with that smell weird and he wants a second opinion, or me asking his opinion/advice on whether I'm striking the right balance between individual contributions and supporting others. That sort of thing.
And I think you are right. However, I wonder how you communicate your needs for... Let's say a raise? Or a better position?
You don't want to approach a promotion by saying "I want a promotion now-ish". Rather, you proactively start the conversation by saying "I want to be promoted in 6mo/1y. How do I get there?", and then you keep that conversation going.
For raises, if your relationship with your manager is half decent it's fine to just ask for it. If you're a junior-ish IC your manager is also likely a lower-level manager who feels more affinity for ICs than for upper management and he'll side with you when bubbling your request up to the right people. If you're more senior, you have more leverage and the power dynamics start inverting a bit too. Also, you're expected to have the soft skills to manage that conversation.
For raises, if your relationship with your manager is half decent it's fine to just ask for it. If you're a junior-ish IC your manager is also likely a lower-level manager who feels more affinity for ICs than for upper management and he'll side with you when bubbling your request up to the right people. If you're more senior, you have more leverage and the power dynamics start inverting a bit too. Also, you're expected to have the soft skills to manage that conversation.
> When was the last time you sat down with your spouse or someone else you spent a large portion of your day with and gave them a really fair and objective performance review?
About a year go, a user on Blind wrote a post in which he explained how he and his wife were doing yearly mutual performance reviews wrt their marriage. It was satire, of course, but everyone had a blast putting things into perspective about the toxicity of this practice.
About a year go, a user on Blind wrote a post in which he explained how he and his wife were doing yearly mutual performance reviews wrt their marriage. It was satire, of course, but everyone had a blast putting things into perspective about the toxicity of this practice.
>> My wife and I write each other annual reviews. Need advice.
> My wife and I are competing our annual reviews of each other. One of the challenges I’m facing this year is we didn’t agree on OKRs and I have a lot of qualitative feedback but don’t like how the KPIs look. I’m worried her annual review of me will be similar. We both aligned that we’d max out 401ks, move for promotions and end a car lease. But her career moved faster and we don’t have joint accounts so I failed to enter a savings goal. I’m going to suggest she didn’t save enough to see if I can get insight. Also the household itself did well this year we deceased our order in rate by 15% while moving to a good mix of organics and non frozen items +20%.
https://www.teamblind.com/post/My-wife-and-I-write-each-othe...
> My wife and I are competing our annual reviews of each other. One of the challenges I’m facing this year is we didn’t agree on OKRs and I have a lot of qualitative feedback but don’t like how the KPIs look. I’m worried her annual review of me will be similar. We both aligned that we’d max out 401ks, move for promotions and end a car lease. But her career moved faster and we don’t have joint accounts so I failed to enter a savings goal. I’m going to suggest she didn’t save enough to see if I can get insight. Also the household itself did well this year we deceased our order in rate by 15% while moving to a good mix of organics and non frozen items +20%.
https://www.teamblind.com/post/My-wife-and-I-write-each-othe...
Just a random not: frozen vegetables (and probably meat) are as healthy as fresh and probably healthier than store-bought canned vegetables.
Frozen meals on the other hand...the salt alone could kill you.
Frozen meals on the other hand...the salt alone could kill you.
I remember that one! The people who defended the practice in that thread were laughed out of the room, if I recall correctly.
Feels like it really depends on ego. If your employer only hires "rockstar" developers, they'll get used to being treated like rockstar and won't be able to handle any criticism. Same goes for IT and Ops, if everyone gets treated like a hero, no one will ever see a need for improvement.
The best performance reviews I've had the are ones where my manager/TL is asking me what I'd like to improve in my work and my team's work. And the next part actually establishing a meaningful and attainable goal.
If your spouse does something that drives you nuts, do you bottle that resentment up and save it for later (too late) or do you have the open and honest conversation to get through it early?
The best performance reviews I've had the are ones where my manager/TL is asking me what I'd like to improve in my work and my team's work. And the next part actually establishing a meaningful and attainable goal.
If your spouse does something that drives you nuts, do you bottle that resentment up and save it for later (too late) or do you have the open and honest conversation to get through it early?
>If your spouse does something that drives you nuts, do you bottle that resentment up and save it for later (too late) or do you have the open and honest conversation to get through it early?
Of course not, I wait until the end of the year, compose a 360 analysis using feedback from 5 of her peers, and we work through her KPIs together.
Come on, this isn't about ego, if you had the social interaction of a "performance review" in any other setting, people would think you're a psychopath.
Coming away from these meetings with positive feelings seems more like Stockholm syndrome than anything else.
Of course not, I wait until the end of the year, compose a 360 analysis using feedback from 5 of her peers, and we work through her KPIs together.
Come on, this isn't about ego, if you had the social interaction of a "performance review" in any other setting, people would think you're a psychopath.
Coming away from these meetings with positive feelings seems more like Stockholm syndrome than anything else.
>Coming away from these meetings with positive feelings seems more like Stockholm syndrome than anything else.
Why would an employer want you to experience anything less? And if you really hated that feeling, you'd have already started looking for somewhere else to work.
Why would an employer want you to experience anything less? And if you really hated that feeling, you'd have already started looking for somewhere else to work.
[deleted]
Employer is NOT your spouse. If actually think it is, you’re in for a tough breakup because it certainly doesn’t operate in those terms.
Nobody has mentioned Deming yet, so here we go.
Team members generally all perform around the same level, at least within a couple of standard deviations. The reason for this is simple: individual skill does not determine performance in a team as much as the rest of the environment does.
The system a software developer works in shapes their performance so much more than individual differences.
So if you're going to assign promotions and bonuses on individual results, make God damn sure these results are truly off the charts compared to their peers.
If you don't, you're basically running a lottery. Except you don't call it that, so your team will still try to actively do things to try to win this lottery. And these things will not be in line with what you want your team to be doing, because they will try those things first and see that they don't work. Because it's a lottery they have very little ability to affect, so obviously nothing will work.
What's worse, you might very well also create internal competition, where your team stops working as a team. They will realise they can't win your lottery by doing great work, so they will start to prevent their teammates from doing great work instead.
Performance reviews are so stupid.
Just talk to your people. Have a conversation about how they are doing. And then let the entire team have the bonus(es). It can be so simple.
Team members generally all perform around the same level, at least within a couple of standard deviations. The reason for this is simple: individual skill does not determine performance in a team as much as the rest of the environment does.
The system a software developer works in shapes their performance so much more than individual differences.
So if you're going to assign promotions and bonuses on individual results, make God damn sure these results are truly off the charts compared to their peers.
If you don't, you're basically running a lottery. Except you don't call it that, so your team will still try to actively do things to try to win this lottery. And these things will not be in line with what you want your team to be doing, because they will try those things first and see that they don't work. Because it's a lottery they have very little ability to affect, so obviously nothing will work.
What's worse, you might very well also create internal competition, where your team stops working as a team. They will realise they can't win your lottery by doing great work, so they will start to prevent their teammates from doing great work instead.
Performance reviews are so stupid.
Just talk to your people. Have a conversation about how they are doing. And then let the entire team have the bonus(es). It can be so simple.
I would say it's worse than running a lottery. It becomes a self-reenforcing thing where you mentally bucket highly ranked individuals as "your good people". Then you give them the prestigious assignments at the exclusion of others, and that act alone gets them the bonus and promo at the next round, at the cost of under-investing in those who you passed over and demoralizing them. It becomes a tool to create and re-enforce bias, or an echo chamber.
This doesn't describe why, in effectively the same system, almost everywhere I've worked has had people vastly outperforming others. I say this as one of the perennial bottom quartilers.
Sometimes there are significant individual differences. Sometimes some people have figured out how to work "in a different system" that is more effective.
Good use of manager time is to figure out what those people do differently and then have them teach their ways to the others. This will, in effect, "improve the whole system" as someone else put it.
Put another way: when there are individual 10x performers on the team (note that this is 10x the average, not 10x the worst), there is also massive untapped training potential, and management has already failed to make use of this. If anyone should have a bad performance review in that situation, it sure isn't the individual contributor who didn't get the tools they needed to do the job! It should be the manager who didn't give them those tools.
That said our business has a tendency to overvalue individual contributions over team contributions. My going example is that a person that spends all day getting other people unblocked on their issues might well be the greatest facilitator of productiveness in the team, but they will appear to be the person that never gets anything done.
Good use of manager time is to figure out what those people do differently and then have them teach their ways to the others. This will, in effect, "improve the whole system" as someone else put it.
Put another way: when there are individual 10x performers on the team (note that this is 10x the average, not 10x the worst), there is also massive untapped training potential, and management has already failed to make use of this. If anyone should have a bad performance review in that situation, it sure isn't the individual contributor who didn't get the tools they needed to do the job! It should be the manager who didn't give them those tools.
That said our business has a tendency to overvalue individual contributions over team contributions. My going example is that a person that spends all day getting other people unblocked on their issues might well be the greatest facilitator of productiveness in the team, but they will appear to be the person that never gets anything done.
> Good use of manager time is to figure out what those people do differently and then have them teach their ways to the others.
What if the greats do that, and the others just don't care enough to learn, like this is a blue collar job with white collar pay to them?
They could be greater than they are; they think they're great already, but they're nowhere near the true greats on the team.
You can't make them care and you can't make them want to be great.
What if the greats do that, and the others just don't care enough to learn, like this is a blue collar job with white collar pay to them?
They could be greater than they are; they think they're great already, but they're nowhere near the true greats on the team.
You can't make them care and you can't make them want to be great.
Given how little most managers actually care about creating a great workplace, I'm not surprised things like "you can't make them care" are assumed to be true.
In a great workplace, people start to care. They feel pride over their workmanship and social responsibility with other employees. (In general. As always, there are outliers that need to be handled differently, but they're a small minority.)
In a great workplace, people start to care. They feel pride over their workmanship and social responsibility with other employees. (In general. As always, there are outliers that need to be handled differently, but they're a small minority.)
> The system a software developer works in shapes their performance so much more than individual differences.
So what you need to reward is people who improve the system!
So what you need to reward is people who improve the system!
The best discussion I've ever seen on performance reviews was Joel Spolsky's observation (https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/03/incentive-pay-cons...):
"Negative reviews, obviously, have a devastating effect on morale. In fact, giving somebody a review that is positive, but not as positive as that person expected, also has a negative effect on morale. ... Most software managers have no choice but to go along with performance review systems that are already in place. If you’re in this position, the only way to prevent teamicide is to simply give everyone on your team a gushing review."
"Negative reviews, obviously, have a devastating effect on morale. In fact, giving somebody a review that is positive, but not as positive as that person expected, also has a negative effect on morale. ... Most software managers have no choice but to go along with performance review systems that are already in place. If you’re in this position, the only way to prevent teamicide is to simply give everyone on your team a gushing review."
Joel Spolsky is awesome.
As a manager for many years, I feel I did well in this arena. I was able to keep a team of highly intelligent, experienced engineers together for decades, under...interesting circumstances.
In the last fifteen years or so, our HR started to show a type of attitude that I think is prevalent in the modern American HR culture; that the corporation is always "on top," and that the employee/job applicant is always in a subservient position, in some way.
I was instructed to word and score my reviews to (in my opinion) enforce this mindset. The scores generally got lower (did I mention that my team was "high functioning"?). I was actually told to lower my scores a few times.
I made up for this by giving very "gushing" wording on the reviews. The employees knew the score. HR was applying their "alpha dog" mindset in all types of ways, so we all knew where this was coming from.
It really didn't make much difference on salary increases. The range was generally tiny, and the score barely made any difference (Salary was not a real motivator).
Don't even get me started on my own reviews. Several years, I got none at all, and that suited me fine, as the ones I did get were obviously quickly thrown together, using an SaaS "fill in the blanks" app.
As a manager for many years, I feel I did well in this arena. I was able to keep a team of highly intelligent, experienced engineers together for decades, under...interesting circumstances.
In the last fifteen years or so, our HR started to show a type of attitude that I think is prevalent in the modern American HR culture; that the corporation is always "on top," and that the employee/job applicant is always in a subservient position, in some way.
I was instructed to word and score my reviews to (in my opinion) enforce this mindset. The scores generally got lower (did I mention that my team was "high functioning"?). I was actually told to lower my scores a few times.
I made up for this by giving very "gushing" wording on the reviews. The employees knew the score. HR was applying their "alpha dog" mindset in all types of ways, so we all knew where this was coming from.
It really didn't make much difference on salary increases. The range was generally tiny, and the score barely made any difference (Salary was not a real motivator).
Don't even get me started on my own reviews. Several years, I got none at all, and that suited me fine, as the ones I did get were obviously quickly thrown together, using an SaaS "fill in the blanks" app.
>...a type of attitude that I think is prevalent in the modern American HR culture; that the corporation is always "on top," and that the employee/job applicant is always in a subservient position, in some way.
I note this attitude as well. Where do you think it comes from?
I note this attitude as well. Where do you think it comes from?
I can't speak for other companies, but our HR was run by the corporate Counsel (lawyer). I think that's increasingly common, these days, as the job of HR is generally to protect the corporation from its own employees.
Lawyers have a naturally adversarial mindset. They never pass up any opportunity for an edge, as that edge can give them some leverage.
That's not really a good or bad thing. That's their job, but it can be a bit jarring, when you encounter it.
Lawyers have a naturally adversarial mindset. They never pass up any opportunity for an edge, as that edge can give them some leverage.
That's not really a good or bad thing. That's their job, but it can be a bit jarring, when you encounter it.
Makes sense to me!
I've only gotten gushing reviews for years, and at some point I started wondering how real they were.
I've come to the conclusion that I really am doing well, but the reviews are not a way to prove that. They just prove that the company still wants me around, not that I'm excelling at my job.
I've come to the conclusion that I really am doing well, but the reviews are not a way to prove that. They just prove that the company still wants me around, not that I'm excelling at my job.
I had a performance review once… The only thing that I decided to change was my attitude in the office: I started smiling more, wearing nicer clothes, cleaning my desk, saluting my co-workers in the morning and wishing people a nice day in the elevators. All of a sudden my next performance review was labelled as “great” and I got a $5k bonus followed by $10k four months later. Nothing related to my workload changed.
My theory is: either my co-workers, manager, human resources or all of them were concerned about my facial expressions and personality being always neutral, doing just what I was supposed to do in the office: work. My co-workers did not have anything special to say about me, nothing bad nor good, I talked with them just enough to do my job, almost never said anything about my life, family or the things I did during the weekend. Many people draw mental images of you using the information you give them about what you do in your life outside of work, so I assume they unconsciously translated the lack of personal details as “this person is not good for me” and somehow this ended up in the performance review that almost fired me.
Years later, here I am, still playing the psychological game at work. It is tiring but it works.
My theory is: either my co-workers, manager, human resources or all of them were concerned about my facial expressions and personality being always neutral, doing just what I was supposed to do in the office: work. My co-workers did not have anything special to say about me, nothing bad nor good, I talked with them just enough to do my job, almost never said anything about my life, family or the things I did during the weekend. Many people draw mental images of you using the information you give them about what you do in your life outside of work, so I assume they unconsciously translated the lack of personal details as “this person is not good for me” and somehow this ended up in the performance review that almost fired me.
Years later, here I am, still playing the psychological game at work. It is tiring but it works.
> Nothing related to my workload changed
The individual work is only part of the job, collaborating with the rest of the team and communicating with your peers and managers is a huge part of it as well. That's something that I wish I really learned/accepted earlier in my career too. Appearing more friendly makes it easier for the rest of your team to interact with you, but on top of that just the act of smiling can actually make you happier so the change may even be deeper than just an appearances thing.
It sounds like you tricked yourself into genuinely improving as a software engineer :)
The individual work is only part of the job, collaborating with the rest of the team and communicating with your peers and managers is a huge part of it as well. That's something that I wish I really learned/accepted earlier in my career too. Appearing more friendly makes it easier for the rest of your team to interact with you, but on top of that just the act of smiling can actually make you happier so the change may even be deeper than just an appearances thing.
It sounds like you tricked yourself into genuinely improving as a software engineer :)
...improving as an "extrovert pleaser."
Extroverts seem to think their personality is "a huge part of the job."
Extroverts seem to think their personality is "a huge part of the job."
As a founder and manager I would gladly pay more for people who have a great attitude and improve the general vibe and morale of the team.
I was a TL on a team and one of my team members was an average contributor at best. However, he had passion and an infectious positive attitude. He made the team better through terrible puns and corny jokes.
Don't get me wrong, I've seen employees incapable of their job try their best to get by with friendliness and good attitudes alone. I'm happy to see those employees go. Having a positive morale impact on the team isn't sufficient on it's own. But I definitely agree that having a few people on the team that can elevate morale while also contributing technically is worth more than many realize.
People talk about how some people can make a house a home. Some people have a way of making a group of coworkers a team.
Don't get me wrong, I've seen employees incapable of their job try their best to get by with friendliness and good attitudes alone. I'm happy to see those employees go. Having a positive morale impact on the team isn't sufficient on it's own. But I definitely agree that having a few people on the team that can elevate morale while also contributing technically is worth more than many realize.
People talk about how some people can make a house a home. Some people have a way of making a group of coworkers a team.
Years ago I worked for a company with 2 hardware techs. One customer specifically asked to for the "likeable dumb-ass" to help them even though they knew the solution to their problem might take longer, the smarter tech was a loud know-it-all ass hole and no one liked working with him.
Does this mean you would pay a premium and possibly promote a software developer that doesn't contribute to the product by writing code, but remembers people's birthdays and plans team lunches?
“I’d pay more for a quarterback who creates a positive image for the team during press conferences.”
“Does this mean you’d pay extra for a quarterback who never completes a pass, but is always chipper?”
I’m pretty comfortable saying the answer is “no” here.
“Does this mean you’d pay extra for a quarterback who never completes a pass, but is always chipper?”
I’m pretty comfortable saying the answer is “no” here.
Sounds like the process worked great. Your performance review led to you delivering more of what your company wanted to pay you for.
I work at a place where most people don't look at each other (much less smile) when they pass in the hallway, instead looking at the floor and flattening themselves against the wall as they pass.
You're worth all the bonuses you get.
You're worth all the bonuses you get.
It often feels silly to do so but if it in some ways making your fellow employees feel better about you, everyone, the place ... it can be worth it.
If you work on a team, then I'd say the change in attitude was more visible in the teams productivity that you own.
If you work solo, then I'd guess your manager just liked to see you more outgoing, since it gives the appearance that you enjoy working there and aren't looking for a job somewhere else.
If you work solo, then I'd guess your manager just liked to see you more outgoing, since it gives the appearance that you enjoy working there and aren't looking for a job somewhere else.
Experienced this myself.
Adjusted.
Next performance review I was told I socialized too much :)
Adjusted.
Next performance review I was told I socialized too much :)
Amen.
I had one performance review where one person said I socialized too much and another said I didn't socialize enough.
It was hilarious for both my manager and I
I had one performance review where one person said I socialized too much and another said I didn't socialize enough.
It was hilarious for both my manager and I
I absolutely hate reviews. There is little I dislike more in formalized work culture than the annual review process. I recently worked at a place that did mid-year and year-end reviews and it was twice the hate. I worked at another company that had a massive job competency matrix distributed in excel with nearly 100 cells to fill in. I've had managers change my self-evaluations to ensure I used the exact language necessary to allow them to give me a raise/promotion that they felt I deserved. I've also been in the mid-level management hell that is stack ranking where 10 TLs get put into a room with senior managers and argue what order devs are relative to each other.
But as a TL I've managed devs who are eager for this feedback. I don't understand it since I hate it. I also ensure I do 1:1s frequently and I focus on career topics during those discussions. Despite my inability to understand I've witnessed it many time: some people not only want reviews they feel like they need the review. This is especially true the younger a developer is. My theory is that they are still in the after-glow of university and they are used to the idea of regularly getting grades.
So while I find reviews to be little more than justification for adjusting renumeration while providing legal cover, I respect as a leader the genuine need of many to receive a clear and useful performance review at least once a year.
But as a TL I've managed devs who are eager for this feedback. I don't understand it since I hate it. I also ensure I do 1:1s frequently and I focus on career topics during those discussions. Despite my inability to understand I've witnessed it many time: some people not only want reviews they feel like they need the review. This is especially true the younger a developer is. My theory is that they are still in the after-glow of university and they are used to the idea of regularly getting grades.
So while I find reviews to be little more than justification for adjusting renumeration while providing legal cover, I respect as a leader the genuine need of many to receive a clear and useful performance review at least once a year.
Young people who "need reviews" do not actually need reviews but validation. Giving them a mixed review is not going to help their performance or their morale.
Imagine your wife or SO came to you and asked "Am I pretty?" and you told them, "Well, you've made some good efforts, but I think you could definitely dress a little nicer and lose some weight. I know we can get there after enough effort, though. Be a team player!"
Imagine your wife or SO came to you and asked "Am I pretty?" and you told them, "Well, you've made some good efforts, but I think you could definitely dress a little nicer and lose some weight. I know we can get there after enough effort, though. Be a team player!"
> Young people who "need reviews" do not actually need reviews but validation.
I think that is cynical and I believe that you are generally incorrect. Every engineer is individual and has their own needs. It is my belief that good management attempts to understand the needs of individuals and will provide them what they need.
Maybe you have managed people who were seeking validation during the review process, I have no doubt they exist. But I have personal experience with team members, to whom I have had the responsibility to deliver reviews, and they were looking for clear feedback.
I think that is cynical and I believe that you are generally incorrect. Every engineer is individual and has their own needs. It is my belief that good management attempts to understand the needs of individuals and will provide them what they need.
Maybe you have managed people who were seeking validation during the review process, I have no doubt they exist. But I have personal experience with team members, to whom I have had the responsibility to deliver reviews, and they were looking for clear feedback.
Of course, someone who's asking "Am I pretty?" is not as receptive to feedback as someone who's asking "What can I do to be prettier?"
Many people who seek feedback or reviews are in the latter camp.
Many people who seek feedback or reviews are in the latter camp.
Unless you work for a FAANG, in fintech, or some other company where raises and bonuses are a real thing these reviews tend to be useless.
A lot of managers are busy and just throw something together at the last minute, subordinates realize the process is just a formality and stop putting much effort into it as time goes on, etc. Sometimes these meetings are actually counter productive because you end up arguing for a tiny slice of the bonus pie having to "sell" yourself to an individual who knows well what you have contributed. I have witnessed multiple people quitting shortly after feeling underappeciated in a performance review.
A lot of managers are busy and just throw something together at the last minute, subordinates realize the process is just a formality and stop putting much effort into it as time goes on, etc. Sometimes these meetings are actually counter productive because you end up arguing for a tiny slice of the bonus pie having to "sell" yourself to an individual who knows well what you have contributed. I have witnessed multiple people quitting shortly after feeling underappeciated in a performance review.
I'm a contractor these days, I work with clients for a few months to a year or so at a time and then switch company, project and everything else.
One of the major reasons I switched from regular employment to this model was not having to deal with bullshit like annual reviews, personal development plans, coming-year-business plans etc etc and other corporate nonsense.
Maybe it works for those organisations, I don't really care, it always been just a waste of time for me. Particularly the annual reviews where you're supposed to show how what you achieved this year matches up to or exceeeds the plans agreed at the beginning of the year. Without fail those plans became irrelevant within a couple of months and I'd done something entirely different to the plan for the rest of the year. The review result thus always came down to how much management liked and appreciated what you had done for the year, which is a metric they would have used anyway and without the need for a tedious process.
One of the major reasons I switched from regular employment to this model was not having to deal with bullshit like annual reviews, personal development plans, coming-year-business plans etc etc and other corporate nonsense.
Maybe it works for those organisations, I don't really care, it always been just a waste of time for me. Particularly the annual reviews where you're supposed to show how what you achieved this year matches up to or exceeeds the plans agreed at the beginning of the year. Without fail those plans became irrelevant within a couple of months and I'd done something entirely different to the plan for the rest of the year. The review result thus always came down to how much management liked and appreciated what you had done for the year, which is a metric they would have used anyway and without the need for a tedious process.
If you're in a position to review employees, never ever ever let them go into a review not knowing what is going to be on it. How do you do that? Communicate. Communicate constantly. Talk about their wins. Talk about their non-wins. Talk about their skills. Talk about what needs to be improved. Talk to them about what they want to learn. Talk to them about what they have learned. Talk to them all throughout the year.
The yearly performance review system at most places I worked seemed to be largely formalized process laid out by HR to determine raises .. or paths to firing someone.
That's it... the fact that it involved me seemed entirely unnecessary as mostly it was between HR and my boss and/or his boss as to what if any actions came of it. Sometimes not even my boss...
Whatever work I did day to day if my manager had an issue I sure hope he would come to me and we'd work it out right then and there.
At smaller companies things like raises and moving on were just determined largely as needed. I changed careers recently and managed 5 or 6 raises in salary in about a year's time (this was largely because I had no past career experience programming so I came in pretty low).
In the meantime a coworker was politely invited to look elsewhere (more of a situation where everyone knew this wasn't the environment for him and not so much anything he did 'wrong' and they let him work while job hunting) after about 3 months of work.
That's it... the fact that it involved me seemed entirely unnecessary as mostly it was between HR and my boss and/or his boss as to what if any actions came of it. Sometimes not even my boss...
Whatever work I did day to day if my manager had an issue I sure hope he would come to me and we'd work it out right then and there.
At smaller companies things like raises and moving on were just determined largely as needed. I changed careers recently and managed 5 or 6 raises in salary in about a year's time (this was largely because I had no past career experience programming so I came in pretty low).
In the meantime a coworker was politely invited to look elsewhere (more of a situation where everyone knew this wasn't the environment for him and not so much anything he did 'wrong' and they let him work while job hunting) after about 3 months of work.
Performance reviews are a waste of time, there has been plenty of research that shows they add little value to a company. Unfortunately is an easy process for HR to justify their existence and makes putting people on performance management a lot easier. Even worse are 360 reviews. Research has shown that peer review are generally inaccurate and often politically motivated.
I'm against the concept of performance reviews on principle for two reasons:
1. No matter how friendly and "two-way street" the manager tries to make it, the engineers are still captive audience with their jobs on the line while the manager holds all the cards. Even if the engineer is encouraged to, and does, provide feedback, this feedback is, at best, in the air.
2. No matter the feedback, the outcome is pretty similar: negative feedback encourages the engineer to look for other options because of the desire to be valued better. Positive feedback encourages the developer to look for new horizons that might be more challenging and/or more rewarding.
Of course, I don't have a solution, because the closest alternative I can think of also has its own problems. That is, for the team to be completely self-managed so engineers encourage each other by deliberately highlighting and logging the teammates' achievements and for these achievements to be rewarded eventually by management.
Regardless, if performance reviews are inevitable, this article is a nice, if maybe too optimistic, approach. Ultimately, I'd bet that the number of the engineers he manages who considered that his reviews were, at best, the best of a bad situation is more than zero.
1. No matter how friendly and "two-way street" the manager tries to make it, the engineers are still captive audience with their jobs on the line while the manager holds all the cards. Even if the engineer is encouraged to, and does, provide feedback, this feedback is, at best, in the air.
2. No matter the feedback, the outcome is pretty similar: negative feedback encourages the engineer to look for other options because of the desire to be valued better. Positive feedback encourages the developer to look for new horizons that might be more challenging and/or more rewarding.
Of course, I don't have a solution, because the closest alternative I can think of also has its own problems. That is, for the team to be completely self-managed so engineers encourage each other by deliberately highlighting and logging the teammates' achievements and for these achievements to be rewarded eventually by management.
Regardless, if performance reviews are inevitable, this article is a nice, if maybe too optimistic, approach. Ultimately, I'd bet that the number of the engineers he manages who considered that his reviews were, at best, the best of a bad situation is more than zero.
I find performance reviews are better at confirming management problems to employees than reviewing employee performance.
In once case a manager complained that I wasn't working on a component that wasn't my responsibility. (I was always happy to help!) I had to get the CTO involved, and then my manager stopped dragging me into this component. (Edit: It was SSO, and I wrote the browser part. About 95% of the bugs were server-side.)
In another case, a project failed because it wasn't managed. My manager basically said something like, "I'm surprised to learn..." At this point, I realized that he wasn't paying any attention to the project.
In once case a manager complained that I wasn't working on a component that wasn't my responsibility. (I was always happy to help!) I had to get the CTO involved, and then my manager stopped dragging me into this component. (Edit: It was SSO, and I wrote the browser part. About 95% of the bugs were server-side.)
In another case, a project failed because it wasn't managed. My manager basically said something like, "I'm surprised to learn..." At this point, I realized that he wasn't paying any attention to the project.
The problem is the idea of an “annual” review itself, such as:
- arbitrary annual review times almost never coincide with the most useful times to summarize contributions (e.g. try handing out bonuses the day after a big project ends, not months later)
- similarly, arbitrary review times disadvantage new employees; you essentially “waste” a few months on tasks that won’t end up counting this year (“not enough contributions yet”) and that won’t count next year either! (oh those tasks were from last review cycle so...)
- most systems I’ve seen will force you to summarize your worth in just a few broad strokes, and so much valuable work falls through the cracks in such systems
- arbitrary annual review times almost never coincide with the most useful times to summarize contributions (e.g. try handing out bonuses the day after a big project ends, not months later)
- similarly, arbitrary review times disadvantage new employees; you essentially “waste” a few months on tasks that won’t end up counting this year (“not enough contributions yet”) and that won’t count next year either! (oh those tasks were from last review cycle so...)
- most systems I’ve seen will force you to summarize your worth in just a few broad strokes, and so much valuable work falls through the cracks in such systems
The biggest problem with performance reviews: managers are too scared to give feedback throughout the year, so when the feedback does come during the performance review - the employee is in utter shock.
Generally, there's no perfect time to give others' feedback. Most people hate criticizing others. But as a manager, I find that it's necessary; otherwise the performance review experience is less than desirable.
I have been using some performance feedback generators, and it's been helpful in helping me figure out how to phrase feedback so it's specific and mentioned in a way that's not careless or thoughtless.
Generally, there's no perfect time to give others' feedback. Most people hate criticizing others. But as a manager, I find that it's necessary; otherwise the performance review experience is less than desirable.
I have been using some performance feedback generators, and it's been helpful in helping me figure out how to phrase feedback so it's specific and mentioned in a way that's not careless or thoughtless.
Of all things, this stood out to me:
I've read reports of hazing, students being yelled at, forced to do pushups
Have any of these reports been publicized anywhere? I have a morbid curiosity to read about this and what people's responses to those moments were, compared to what my (a US Army veteran) response would be to someone who isn't my commanding officer telling me to get on the ground and push[0].
[0] It wouldn't be very polite, and it may contain a few expletives.
I've read reports of hazing, students being yelled at, forced to do pushups
Have any of these reports been publicized anywhere? I have a morbid curiosity to read about this and what people's responses to those moments were, compared to what my (a US Army veteran) response would be to someone who isn't my commanding officer telling me to get on the ground and push[0].
[0] It wouldn't be very polite, and it may contain a few expletives.
I think this was intended for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21971223
Oops, major mistake on my part there, had both threads open in different tabs. Thank you.
Good article, but I thought that the linked "shields down" article about what triggers an employee to leave a company was equally insightful:
https://randsinrepose.com/archives/shields-down/
In my experience, that's happened at most jobs that I've held, and with most people who left. I find it kind of sad that with all of the work that goes into building a company, and all of the resources and expertise available at their disposal, that managers and employees can't really talk about what's really going on. Most interactions at a company are a delicate dance to preserve the thin veil of hope that makes capitalism possible.
In the end, it really truly is just business. So I've found it helpful to treat it as such, and not get too wrapped up in the emotion of it. Something that really helped me was watching the entire Mad Men series, to get an idea of how this all works. I know that's old news today, but that show arguably had as much effect on my career as stuff like The Secret, manifesting things, The Pick Up Guide about neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) that circulated in the late 90s, and moving furniture (which taught me that all manual labor is exploitive because the lion's share of profit always goes to the people held in high esteem not the people who do the most work).
That said, I'm a highly emotional person who wears my heart on my sleeve. YMMV.
https://randsinrepose.com/archives/shields-down/
In my experience, that's happened at most jobs that I've held, and with most people who left. I find it kind of sad that with all of the work that goes into building a company, and all of the resources and expertise available at their disposal, that managers and employees can't really talk about what's really going on. Most interactions at a company are a delicate dance to preserve the thin veil of hope that makes capitalism possible.
In the end, it really truly is just business. So I've found it helpful to treat it as such, and not get too wrapped up in the emotion of it. Something that really helped me was watching the entire Mad Men series, to get an idea of how this all works. I know that's old news today, but that show arguably had as much effect on my career as stuff like The Secret, manifesting things, The Pick Up Guide about neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) that circulated in the late 90s, and moving furniture (which taught me that all manual labor is exploitive because the lion's share of profit always goes to the people held in high esteem not the people who do the most work).
That said, I'm a highly emotional person who wears my heart on my sleeve. YMMV.
Oh god, another info product written by some new manager who has a whopping... three years of experience as a manager. Of small teams.
It's the same as all those 2 year developers who discover a pattern or two and gush advice on how they're the canonical authority to write MVC in rails.
Try waiting for year 10 or so before dispensing your wisdom. Because the first part of dispensing wisdom is having the wisdom and experience to dispense.
We can do better than Eternal September for advice.
It's the same as all those 2 year developers who discover a pattern or two and gush advice on how they're the canonical authority to write MVC in rails.
Try waiting for year 10 or so before dispensing your wisdom. Because the first part of dispensing wisdom is having the wisdom and experience to dispense.
We can do better than Eternal September for advice.
So do you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? Alternative resources you've found useful in your, I assume, long tenure as a manager and coach of staff?
I mean, we can't do better than "Eternal September" here on HN if talented, experienced folks like yourself don't share the wisdom you've acquired over your long and illustrious career.
Right?
I mean, we can't do better than "Eternal September" here on HN if talented, experienced folks like yourself don't share the wisdom you've acquired over your long and illustrious career.
Right?
Yes, I constructively added this guy has no idea what he's blathering on about, and is definitely not letting that stop him from pretending he's an authority and dispensing advice.
Now, you have a choice on where to learn things. You can learn eg development best practices from people who have 10 or 20 years of development, or you can ask someone who's built small greenfield projects. You apparently think we should value advice from noob's equally; good luck with that there.
Since you don't know how to use google, try going to barnes and noble and asking them to get copies of Camille Fournier's or Michael Lopp's books.
Now, you have a choice on where to learn things. You can learn eg development best practices from people who have 10 or 20 years of development, or you can ask someone who's built small greenfield projects. You apparently think we should value advice from noob's equally; good luck with that there.
Since you don't know how to use google, try going to barnes and noble and asking them to get copies of Camille Fournier's or Michael Lopp's books.
Could you please not be a jerk in HN comments like this? It breaks the site guidelines badly and we ban accounts that do it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Yes, I constructively added this guy has no idea what he's blathering on about, and is definitely not letting that stop him from pretending he's an authority and dispensing advice.
Okay, well, so... examples?
This sounds an awful lot like a simple appeal to authority to me. But "noobs" may have useful insights, just as "people who have 10 or 20 years of development" might have bad habits, biases, or misconceptions.
Look, I think we can all use our brains and determine if this post contains some value or not. Personally, I've been a manager of staff for about five years, and the more regimented, structural approach outlined in this post illuminates some ideas that I might explore in my own practices, and dovetails well with how I've been trying to improve myself in this area.
Am I going to take what this guy has written and follow it as though it's the bible of staff management?
No, of course not. Again, I have a functioning brain, and in general I try to use it.
But, I will read this post with an open, thinking mind and decide for myself if there's value to be gotten from it.
That said, I come to these comment threads to find commentary or discourse that might touch on things I've missed when reading this material for myself.
Ideally, that would include constructive criticisms of the content so we can, as a community, learn both from the post itself and from contributions from folks like yourself.
If that's not what you're here for, and you'd rather just tear the author (and this community) down, I guess that's fine. But it seems like a waste of your time, not to mention an unnecessary expenditure of emotional energy. HN comment threads are really not worth getting worked up about.
Anyway, I hope you have a good day!
Okay, well, so... examples?
This sounds an awful lot like a simple appeal to authority to me. But "noobs" may have useful insights, just as "people who have 10 or 20 years of development" might have bad habits, biases, or misconceptions.
Look, I think we can all use our brains and determine if this post contains some value or not. Personally, I've been a manager of staff for about five years, and the more regimented, structural approach outlined in this post illuminates some ideas that I might explore in my own practices, and dovetails well with how I've been trying to improve myself in this area.
Am I going to take what this guy has written and follow it as though it's the bible of staff management?
No, of course not. Again, I have a functioning brain, and in general I try to use it.
But, I will read this post with an open, thinking mind and decide for myself if there's value to be gotten from it.
That said, I come to these comment threads to find commentary or discourse that might touch on things I've missed when reading this material for myself.
Ideally, that would include constructive criticisms of the content so we can, as a community, learn both from the post itself and from contributions from folks like yourself.
If that's not what you're here for, and you'd rather just tear the author (and this community) down, I guess that's fine. But it seems like a waste of your time, not to mention an unnecessary expenditure of emotional energy. HN comment threads are really not worth getting worked up about.
Anyway, I hope you have a good day!
So you think that appealing to authority is pointing out the author has extremely limited experience in matters he's discussing. Interesting.
Yes, or rather it's the inverse.
You appear to be using the author's relative inexperience to then conclude the author's statements or claims are false, irrespective of the content of those claims.
This is the inverse of an appeal to authority where you use the author's experience or credentials to then conclude the author's statements or claims are true, irrespective of the content of those claims.
You appear to be using the author's relative inexperience to then conclude the author's statements or claims are false, irrespective of the content of those claims.
This is the inverse of an appeal to authority where you use the author's experience or credentials to then conclude the author's statements or claims are true, irrespective of the content of those claims.
[deleted]
It's definitely an ad hominem. You haven't said a thing about the actual ideas presented.
[deleted]
Self-promoters start early.
You'll see a similar pattern emerge regarding the presenters at smaller conferences.
It works, though, in terms of advancing the writer's/speaker's career.
You'll see a similar pattern emerge regarding the presenters at smaller conferences.
It works, though, in terms of advancing the writer's/speaker's career.
ihiulll(1)
1. You're doing a great job. Keep at it.
2. You're doing terribly. We are going to start a paper trail to fire you (aka performance improvement plan).
The only reason performance reviews exist at companies is so they have an established way of firing people. Even if I do a great job, top marks across the board, I only receive a 2-4% increase in salary. On the rare occasion I might get a bonus. So there's zero incentive to go "above and beyond" or otherwise improve in a way that benefits the company I am currently employed for.
Now, I continue to improve every day by learning new skills. But these new skills rarely relate to what the current company needs - these are simply things I am curious about. However, these skills will never end up in a "core competency plan" because those plans, by nature, only list skills that benefit the company. Because the target / competency plan only benefits the company, the performance review (which is based off the comp plan) feels very one-sided / binary.
So instead of focusing intently on those competencies, I do the minimum necessary to fulfill them (less than 2 hours of work) and spend the rest of my "self improvement time" learning things I'm genuinely curious about. Then, when I have a marketable understanding of these new tools / tech, I jump ship, usually for a higher compensation package.
If you want performance reviews to actually matter, allow people to set goals that do not always benefit the company. Understand your employees have many different interests and give them space to explore those interests.