In the real world performance review is useless. Would you trust Trump's reviews of Hillary as a cabinet leader or Hillary's reviews of Trump as a businessman? In the real world people just go through the motions of performance reviews and management doesn't care about feedback until they want someone gone. I have seen people completely delusional that they are so far ahead of everyone else and are uniquely qualified to pass judgement on everyone but not receive any. Their ability to maintain their belief is amazing. It's part of their identity and their need to have power. People cannot be trusted to give impartial feedback about their competitors. I had to leave many of those people behind to advance my career. They continue on in their low paying middle management or developer jobs.
Ask HN: Do we really need performance feedback?
11–20 of 47 posts
Re: Ask HN: Do we really need performance feedback?
#12Feedback from my direct managers is fairly important for me. Anonymous feedback from some peers helps with that as it gives the manager an idea of what working with me is like to my coworkers. If I'm doing my job well I want to know about it because it reminds me not to doubt myself and stay on course. If I need to do something different I want to know about it early so that I can course-correct before it becomes a p…
I have a rhetorical question here. When you say that anonymous feedback gives manager the idea of what working with me is like to my coworkers, do you think this information is useful for and should actually be allowed to share with potential employers and recruiting managers? Shouldn't they have a right to this information? For example: when a candidate mentions "references" on his resume, they are always meant to g…
That suddenly makes the comments I give someone in feedback vital to their future job so being at all negative would be seen as a big punishment.
> For example: when a candidate mentions "references" on his resume, they are always meant to give positive feedback about them which is why again its broken.
Many jobs don't give any feedback at all. The purpose is to prove that you did, in fact, work there with that title for that duration.
General question: are un-vetted reviews about someone by completely unknown people a reliable indicator of future performance?
If places don't give reliably truthful reviews, why would you expect that the 360 feedback wouldn't turn into exactly the same thing?
Re: Ask HN: Do we really need performance feedback?
#13You need feedback, yes.
But perhaps not (or not only) on the annual review level, but rather solicit feedback from peers and superiors on a per-project level (or if you work in a Scrum team, per epos or something).
If you get such feedback maybe every two or three months, and then you get a bad annual performance review, you might even use the feedback you collected privately to influence the annual performance review.
Re: Ask HN: Do we really need performance feedback?
#14I think (and have experienced from both sides) that feedback is very important for growth and for mental wellbeing as well. Feedback should be continuous though, yearly/twice a year is not enough. Feedback should be coming from everyone you work with, not only your manager. Feedback helps you calibrate yourself and also helps in setting goals that are relevant.
That said, you should definitely work on your self-consciousness so you can start being more objective about yourself, but that can be a loooong journey.
It's also important to know the context of the feedbacks you're getting. If you pissed off someone once and that person gives you a negative feedback just because of one situation, know that it might not be unbiased. Also ask for specific examples when getting feedback. It should be a live, active communication rather some abstracted-out isolated way of communicating. If you don't understand something or you see something you don't agree with just talk to the person, ask for clarification, examples.
Re: Ask HN: Do we really need performance feedback?
#15Feedback works when it is fairly instant, friendly and most of all fair.
If you have to do X, Y and Z in n amount of time and you fail then a quick chat about why failed is very useful whilst the issues are fresh in peoples minds.
If you have to wait a few months for your next review then no one really remembers the intricacies of the event, so you aren't really able to flesh out what went wrong or what can be improved.
The friendliness part is vital too. Reviews can easily turn too formal and intimidating, putting the employee on the defensive. Most employees don't want to under performs so don't treat them like they are being accused of something bad.
And I cannot under estimate the fairness part. Only review based on established criteria. Be objective, not subjective. If you let other employees offer feedback then force them to provide evidence and don't just accept their opinion as provided. I was once told by manager that he was family friendly and he was flexible about arrival times, so long as I put the hours in and got the work done. When I took advantage of this for just one week I was given a beating in my review for poor punctuality. When I challenged my manager about his claim to be Okay with this his response was "Do you have that in writing?". I resigned a week later. They begged me stay I refused.
Re: Ask HN: Do we really need performance feedback?
#16Feedback works when it is fairly instant, friendly and most of all fair. If you have to do X, Y and Z in n amount of time and you fail then a quick chat about why failed is very useful whilst the issues are fresh in peoples minds. If you have to wait a few months for your next review then no one really remembers the intricacies of the event, so you aren't really able to flesh out what went wrong or what can be improv…
> Feedback works when it is fairly instant, friendly and most of all fair.
Well said. I assume that by "friendly", you imply "constructive".
Also: "How to Offer Constructive Feedback & Recognition" [0] and "How to Give Effective Feedback" [1].
[0] http://www.usc.edu/programs/cwfl/assets/pdf/constructive_fee...
[1] http://www.unh.edu/hr/sites/unh.edu.hr/files/pdfs/tool-2.pdf
Re: Ask HN: Do we really need performance feedback?
#17Feedback from my direct managers is fairly important for me. Anonymous feedback from some peers helps with that as it gives the manager an idea of what working with me is like to my coworkers. If I'm doing my job well I want to know about it because it reminds me not to doubt myself and stay on course. If I need to do something different I want to know about it early so that I can course-correct before it becomes a p…
I have a rhetorical question here. When you say that anonymous feedback gives manager the idea of what working with me is like to my coworkers, do you think this information is useful for and should actually be allowed to share with potential employers and recruiting managers? Shouldn't they have a right to this information? For example: when a candidate mentions "references" on his resume, they are always meant to g…
Interesting, but I don't think that this would be a good idea. Different companies structure performance reviews in different ways, so I think that feedback from peers is important and useful to managers who are in the company and familiar with how the company/team/processes work. I feel the best way to explain my reasoning is to explain a little about how the performance process works at my company:
We have a day-to-day manager (a person on the project team managing your sprint goals, day to day decisions, etc) and a "line" manager - a manager who is more HR and keeps an eye on your performance, project staffing, professional development, goals, etc. You get feedback from both, but the line manager is the person who handles the formal performance review process, reviews peer feedback, handles the promotion process, etc. This is the person you meet with at least once a month to talk about your general progress, how you're feeling in the role, how effective you are, tensions in relationships with others on the team, etc.
You can pick who you ask for your feedback (so you are free to pick people you get along with, although I tend to pick people from different disciplines who I think could provide useful information). The line manager then also speaks to your day to day manager and other people they feel are relevant but whom you may not have picked. All of this, I feel, builds a fairly good picture of your performance coupled with the line manager's knowledge of the project, company, team members involved. The line manager then interprets all of this to the best of their ability and communicates it to you.
In other words you have some level of certainty that the in-house manager doing your performance review will most of the time have a good idea of the environment and the context in which reviews are given. You can usually trust their interpretation of the feedback and overall situation (or have a discussion about why you might disagree with a certain point).
An outside hiring manager presented with a pile of historical feedback probably won't be able to interpret it very effectively - they won't know what was happening in the project, who the other people are or what their biases may be, etc. This can easily result in a totally inaccurate impression of the candidate.
Re: Ask HN: Do we really need performance feedback?
#18Performance feedback should be quicker and on the spot.
we spent most of our day with our colleagues it's hard to get honest and real feedback now a days. Managers should focus on positive feedback too.
A good article about skill feedback. Don’t add your 2 cents https://t.co/TVo6TQ7SQU
Re: Ask HN: Do we really need performance feedback?
#19Feedback works when it is fairly instant, friendly and most of all fair. If you have to do X, Y and Z in n amount of time and you fail then a quick chat about why failed is very useful whilst the issues are fresh in peoples minds. If you have to wait a few months for your next review then no one really remembers the intricacies of the event, so you aren't really able to flesh out what went wrong or what can be improv…
> Feedback works when it is fairly instant, friendly and most of all fair. Well said. I assume that by "friendly", you imply "constructive". Also: "How to Offer Constructive Feedback & Recognition" [0] and "How to Give Effective Feedback" [1]. [0] http://www.usc.edu/programs/cwfl/assets/pdf/constructive_fee... [1] http://www.unh.edu/hr/sites/unh.edu.hr/files/pdfs/tool-2.pdf
Yep, even if they are bringing up a serious issue they should phrase it as positively as possible.
So, instead of "I'm really unhappy that you are missing targets." say "I notice you're having a bit of an issue with targets, is there anything I can help you with?"
Re: Ask HN: Do we really need performance feedback?
#20I taught in a high school for 5 years. I learned one very important thing: you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. I only noticed after that experience that in my previous 25 years as a programmer the vast majority of people ignored my advice (even when they asked for it!)
Generally speaking, I've found that people have a preconceived notion of an answer when they solicit feedback for something. Then they go shopping around for the person who will answer with the feedback that they expect. When you give unsolicited feedback the effect is even stronger -- people simply do not want to believe that their expectations do not mesh with the real world.
The end result is that if you give good feedback and are saying things that the person knows already, it's not very effective because they already know it. If you give feedback and the person is surprised by it, they will disregard it unless forced to confront it. Forcing people to confront their incorrect understanding sometimes works, but rarely (Think... how many students shape up after failing a test? Some do, but the vast majority simply fall into a pattern of failure).
My most successful pattern of "feedback" is to simply provide support. If someone requires feedback, I rather ask them what they think of the situation. If it matches my opinion, then I encourage them to continue. If it doesn't, I do nothing until the situation reaches a head -- then I offer my assistance to help. Usually if the person is desperate they will also be open to new ideas.
Allowing people to fail is the best way to help them learn. Sometimes it can be costly, though. If the cost gets to be too high, you might have to intervene, but that's not a "regular feedback" kind of thing.
Just to clarify, though, most people require a different kind of feedback -- "You are a nice person. I enjoy working with you. I like it when you do X." It makes them feel comfortable and able to do their work. That kind of encouragement is often lacking in the workplace (and in schools, unfortunately). It helps to make a point of saying nice things whenever you notice them. At school I literally made a chart with all my students on it and I checked off whenever I noticed something they did right (and commented on it). If someone was missing ticks I would dedicate myself to watching them all day to catch them doing something right (try not to be creepy about it ;-) )
Edit: If you are wanting to write software, I would love a chart that I could put all my colleagues on where I could write nice things when I saw them. It would be awesome if it had alarms to tell me when I wasn't encouraging certain people, etc. I'd pay money for that.