11–20 of 28 posts
At my company, there's the way they are supposed to be done, and there is the way they are actually done. Even with a process in place, managers and department heads set their own rules and just fo whatever they want.
I asked how reviews are done when I joined a recent company. A VP said that they doesn’t pay attention to it & just makes it up. That’s pretty consistent with my experience at every company.
In my past organization, I never got any non-peer feedback whatsoever, even though they were expected every three months.
In my current organization, you get a little bit in biweekly 1 on 1s, but otherwise I have little idea how the org rates me overall.
For promotions, you give a 1-2hr presentation on the work you've done to a group of other developers and managers not directly working with you. Work done needs to match 51% of the competencies to go to the next level. Usually the pay increase is 10% per level (promotion).
It's practically impossible to get fired. Only way is up.
I like it. No 360 bullshit, no subjective manager bullshit. Everyone is held to the same standard.
You write down some goals and discuss with direct supervisor. After 1 year, another meeting to see how well you did, and you get a rating like "Succeeded", "Succeeded+" or even "Excelled". Set some new goals for the next year, rinse and repeat. For promotions, you give a 1-2hr presentation on the work you've done to a group of other developers and managers not directly working with you. Work done needs to match 51% o…
Simultaneously I am encouraged to request feedback from my colleagues and they from me, in the same system. Also via the system, my skip-level sends me a request for feedback about my manager, and I have the option to make it anonymous to her (the skip), regardless it will not be visible to my manager.
Less formally, my manager periodically emails me asking for feedback about my colleagues, a few weeks later he shares with me what others said about me (anonymously).
I don't know how this process plays in to the raise and promotion discussion, it's opaque to me. Filling these things out is not my favorite task, it creates stress for me. I'm not sure if it's overall a good thing or not compared to my previous job where we had none of this, as well as no job titles, levels, promotions, etc. We just worked and got raises now and then, sometimes you had to ask and sometimes you didn't.
You write down some goals and discuss with direct supervisor. After 1 year, another meeting to see how well you did, and you get a rating like "Succeeded", "Succeeded+" or even "Excelled". Set some new goals for the next year, rinse and repeat. For promotions, you give a 1-2hr presentation on the work you've done to a group of other developers and managers not directly working with you. Work done needs to match 51% o…
That sounds pretty ideal. Where do you work? Has this scaled to a large size?
AFAIK every department follows this structure for performance[1], so that's about 200k employees.
The promotion system is a bit special for my department, since it's tailored for software engineers (about 40% of the department). The rest of the public service has a more competitive system, more similar to the private sector.
[1] https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services...
I'm at a FAANG-adjacent big company, we use what seems to be an in house tool. Twice each year I fill out a form in which I describe what I did, what I plan on doing, and how this contributes to my goals as well as to our shared goals of Diversity and Inclusion. Then my manager fills our the same form about me from his perspective. Simultaneously I am encouraged to request feedback from my colleagues and they from me…
Microsoft
I'm at a FAANG-adjacent big company, we use what seems to be an in house tool. Twice each year I fill out a form in which I describe what I did, what I plan on doing, and how this contributes to my goals as well as to our shared goals of Diversity and Inclusion. Then my manager fills our the same form about me from his perspective. Simultaneously I am encouraged to request feedback from my colleagues and they from me…
Does this apply to people working in Engineering? are you incentivized to have goals that have impact on D&I?
360 degree reviews. Peer reviews, manager reviews all that shenanigans. None of that matters anyway because in the end 5- 10% people will be fired based on curve. How satisfied am I with it? I hate it and it's the sure shot way to ruin mental health of your employees. Tools used: Workday (which deserves a special place in hell itself)
Personally I've always prefered 360 over whatever the hell I have. Non-technical people reviewing your performance without knowing what you actually do.