I have never heard anyone at any level day that their companies annual review was useful. What would be useful would be some kind of regular e.g. monthly catchup for real mutual improvement. This rarely happens.
At my first company we had an open salary and review policy. You could read anyones up to ceo level (6000+ employees). This was the best structure I've worked in, but it might not work for everyone.
As an individual contributor, the review process was at least one day of productivity gone; people manager's time spent is even higher. What a tremendous waste of company resources to go through that once a month.
Maybe some sort of streamlined process could work, but I've always thrived on benign neglect, so I dunno. Could be handled in a monthly 1:1 meeting; hey tuorin, nice work this month; hey toast0, stop goofing off or you'll get a meets most. Etc. Faster feedback cycles is good if it's meaningful and actionable. When it's just hey I've got to fit you all to the corporate curve, meh, less often is better.
Not really. In my experience management largely doesn't like it and neither do the employees.
I think it is mostly designed to document issues with low performers to have as evidence for their eventual termination.
I try to use it to improve and there are some suggestions that help and in theory it can better align manager and employee expectations. I use it to explain my long term career goals to my manager so he knows what I need and he can relate to me if he wants me to make any changes to reach the goals of the group and company.
Not useful. I think I have never recieved useful feedback. It's always some political BS, generalized conversation, or a half baked picture of the situation.
I mean, if you worked here you would learn not to expect much. The managers are always trying to push responsibilities down to the employees. It's to the point where the employees might as well do the manager's job. Oh wait, we have senior devs in a new chapter lead model that do half people leadership and half coding... what a mess.
6 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 28.7 ms ] threadAt my first company we had an open salary and review policy. You could read anyones up to ceo level (6000+ employees). This was the best structure I've worked in, but it might not work for everyone.
Maybe some sort of streamlined process could work, but I've always thrived on benign neglect, so I dunno. Could be handled in a monthly 1:1 meeting; hey tuorin, nice work this month; hey toast0, stop goofing off or you'll get a meets most. Etc. Faster feedback cycles is good if it's meaningful and actionable. When it's just hey I've got to fit you all to the corporate curve, meh, less often is better.
I think it is mostly designed to document issues with low performers to have as evidence for their eventual termination.
I try to use it to improve and there are some suggestions that help and in theory it can better align manager and employee expectations. I use it to explain my long term career goals to my manager so he knows what I need and he can relate to me if he wants me to make any changes to reach the goals of the group and company.
I mean, if you worked here you would learn not to expect much. The managers are always trying to push responsibilities down to the employees. It's to the point where the employees might as well do the manager's job. Oh wait, we have senior devs in a new chapter lead model that do half people leadership and half coding... what a mess.