Slightly off center from your question, but: 1. Every Wednesday I Google Meet with my salespeople. We review the prior week's priority prospects, this week's, and then I ask them about clients not on the list that our BI system has identified as promising. An integration of internal systems, Slack & Zapier alerts me each day to anomalies (good and bad) with clients, inventory and systems. MixMax (shout out to Brad!)…
How does your BI system identify them as promising? Is this via company metrics already inserted into your CRM or maybe something organically gathered?
Ask HN: What does performance management look like at your company?
71–80 of 170 posts
Re: Ask HN: What does performance management look like at your company?
#72It looks like a total waste of time. As a developer of internal web apps, it is apparent what I must do next to serve my users, in the next week, month, quarter, year --- I have a long to-do list! It is also apparent what I must do to serve my team, in the next week, month, quarter, year. (I get rave reviews from both, unsolicited.) The goals that cascade from the executives are laughably vague and obvious: cut costs…
I will say though, that the executive layer above our heads is not to be totally dismissed. They do have vision into things that we can lack, namely people and culture stuff that has significant impact on the company's long term trajectory. Or maybe big acquisitions and whatever. But the people stuff is what generates all the perceivably asinine people management stuff because if you get rid of the average nonautonomous employee, you have no one left pretty much. Hiring good engineers is HARDDDDDDDDDDD unless you can just bury the problem with cash.
The best potential solve I can personally see still hinges on having the right people. For any unit of people at any scale doing anything, a leader who can effectively recognize who to empower within what boundaries feels like it's by far the most crucial thing. I'm not sure there's even a way to have a pilotable thing made of individuals without having a conductor. If you just build out the org in a way where it can be conducted and put good conductors in place then they will be able to tell you wtf is going on at the level you need to know about and effectively translate your intentions into implementation.
Feels like this is the why behind the whole "idk y'all figure it out" style of startup engineering nonleadership that's becoming common these days. People just flat out don't know what they're doing, and even when they know it, they obscure it for self-serving reasons. If you have a leader setting this example via doing anything but having technical field vision and directing as a respected and well liked military officer would, then you will have an engineering org that is optimized for bleeding money.
Re: Ask HN: What does performance management look like at your company?
#73First, the levels, because I perhaps have a different interpretation of these than I'm used to seeing. There are essentially three levels that correspond to performance compared to expectations. So underperforming, performing, and overperforming. Only underperforming carries a negative connotation [0], because it means that you are not meeting the expectations for your level. In contrast, overperforming means that you are reaching beyond your current level.
So, hopefully we have zero people underperforming. Also, hopefully we have the vast majority of people performing. Because overperforming basically means we need to be finding an expanded role for that person, which we may or may not have. If too many people are overperforming, then we can maybe expect turf wars as people start trying to expand their role without guidance, which is terrible for morale. Hopefully we can balance overperformers with growth, so we are moving people to expanded roles and then filling in below with new hires.
So, given this leveling, there are two types of goals: baseline and growth. Baseline goals apply to the entire team and define those baseline expectations for that team. Meeting these goals will keep the team out of underperforming territory [1]. Growth goals are tailored to a specific individual, and detail specific targets to work on. The idea is to provide meaningful growth to the person and their capabilities, with an eye towards expanding their role. Over time, having and meeting these growth goals will result in overperforming as the individual fills that expanded role more and more.
[0] Caveat: I would expect a junior-level to be growing. So juniors who are not overperforming are worrisome.
[1] There's a bit of issue here in team vs individuals. Generally, as long as the team is successful, I tend to err on the side of overrating individuals. After all, part of the reason we make teams is to allow them to shore up weaknesses and play to strengths. However, I leave in an out by having a baseline goal centered on teamwork and team success. So if someone is not contributing as expected to the team, there's something to call them out on.
Re: Ask HN: What does performance management look like at your company?
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, exactly this. What I tell my directs when they write their reviews is two things. The lesser one is that I'm a human and I don't remember all the awesome stuff that everyone does through a whole year. So now is the chance to remind me of it. Secondly, and more relevantly and importantly, I'm about to walk into a shooting match to defend my employees' performances against a larger pool. And what I need in that ba…
Do you make an effort throughout the year to write down all the awesome stuff your directs have done?
Re: Ask HN: What does performance management look like at your company?
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you’re ever in a SAFe team, one of the tenants is that annual reviews are useless. It pushes for doing constructive reviews every PI (approximately quarterly).
If I'm ever again in a SAFe team, something has gone terribly wrong. I won't join a company that uses this practice unless I'm very desperate. If a company I'm at adopts it after I've joined I will immediately begin looking elsewhere.
I've loved it at my company. It seems like development best practices + sanity enforcement outside of it and it's fairly flexible too (we use kanban instead of scrum).
It's done wonders for putting the planning of how things should be implemented into the hands of developers themselves and then essentially gets out of the way.
Re: Ask HN: What does performance management look like at your company?
#76It's all honestly completely useless. I've never had a useful performance review at any company ever. It's either I'm doing bad, and know it, and that is either my fault or due to reasons outside of my control. Or I'm doing well, and know it. Honestly, sometimes at places things were so bad that I felt I was doing terrible, but I was actually keeping the team going by pushing past a lot of tricky issues. Really I thi…
I have short 15min weeklies with my team members and then other frequent check-in points. By doing this the official review process becomes redundant i.e. no surprises in expectation mismatches - from my side and team this is a good thing but we waste time doing the official stuff.
Competent managers don’t need to do performance reviews and bad managers are not helped by them
Re: Ask HN: What does performance management look like at your company?
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? reading Wikipedia this seems to be what used to be called RAD - done right its Fucking awesome. One thing is you need 100% collocated experienced people who know what they are doing - no third party agencies who spend 15 mins discussing pixel separation in photoshop mock-ups. It also not something you'd carelessly throw a junior or an intern into
SAFe as I’ve seen and experienced it is a cumbersome, process-heavy system. Like most other project management systems currently in use in this industry it’s probably okay if 95% or more of the features are well-known and specified clearly. For any non-trivial software development work it’s a burden. For development touching other disciplines (e.g. statistics/ML, new product development) it’s more like an obstacle.
It’s supposed to be getting out of the way of developers.
Re: Ask HN: What does performance management look like at your company?
#78It's all honestly completely useless. I've never had a useful performance review at any company ever. It's either I'm doing bad, and know it, and that is either my fault or due to reasons outside of my control. Or I'm doing well, and know it. Honestly, sometimes at places things were so bad that I felt I was doing terrible, but I was actually keeping the team going by pushing past a lot of tricky issues. Really I thi…
If you’re ever in a SAFe team, one of the tenants is that annual reviews are useless. It pushes for doing constructive reviews every PI (approximately quarterly).
Re: Ask HN: What does performance management look like at your company?
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you’re ever in a SAFe team, one of the tenants is that annual reviews are useless. It pushes for doing constructive reviews every PI (approximately quarterly).
Sorry but what is SAFe? (No pun intended)
Re: Ask HN: What does performance management look like at your company?
#80Slightly off center from your question, but: 1. Every Wednesday I Google Meet with my salespeople. We review the prior week's priority prospects, this week's, and then I ask them about clients not on the list that our BI system has identified as promising. An integration of internal systems, Slack & Zapier alerts me each day to anomalies (good and bad) with clients, inventory and systems. MixMax (shout out to Brad!)…
> Xero is hot garbage IMHO, but I've built some integrations Curious to understand more about these? I've been doing a bit of exploring in the analytics space here, and would love to know where you found the available apps falling short.