Hell is other people: performance management at Big Tech

Post by beacon294 » Mon, Jan 29, 2024, 8:30 AM UTC

anttiharju wrote: post #53

dclowd9901 wrote: post #47

About halfway through this article I got to thinking: what if we measured reward as not just pay, but also responsibility. But no, I don’t mean “give this person more agency over others.” I mean “give this person more ability to execute on their own terms within the company.” Let’s say I’m an employee at company X. And I notice employee Anna is not just good at her work but also seems to have a keen understanding of…

How do you scale that?

Post by theusus » Mon, Jan 29, 2024, 8:50 AM UTC

fmajid wrote: post #76

theusus wrote: post #57

My company didn’t believe in peer feedback, but only manager’s. My manager used to absent-minded in almost all the places. So much, that he himself wasn’t aware of requirements. But someone had to take the blame. And it was turned on me. I protested and got fired. In the end, the article somehow protects individuals giving out review but I totally blame them for unfair review. As a manager it’s their responsibility t…

In my company’s last round, the VP leading the effort (audience of engineering managers and senior ICs only) flat out stated feedback from managers doesn’t count, only from senior ICs. For engineers, at least. Unfortunately, senior ICs can play favorites and be toxic just as well as managers.

Post by abc_lisper » Mon, Jan 29, 2024, 9:01 AM UTC

bmallerd wrote: post #16

physhster wrote: post #10

"as well as a handful of unlucky folks who deliver solid results but lack social grace and self-promotion skills" Which is coincidentally, usually, the most productive problem-solvers. The biggest talkers tend to not be doers, at least not in a way that is beneficial to the company, just themselves.

For some narrow definition of problem - sure.

Post by jimberlage » Mon, Jan 29, 2024, 9:10 AM UTC

mil22 wrote: post #17

ergocoder wrote: post #8

> The problem is that every employee is judged by their ability to get work done That's mostly not true.

Agreed. The employee is rather judged by something like their peer's perception of how competent the employee is, their knowledge of the work the employee did, and their own belief of how important that work was, all filtered through their various cognitive biases about what work is important to the company and what a competent employee looks like. There are so many of these biases. As just one example, studies have…

Post by avidiax » Mon, Jan 29, 2024, 9:47 AM UTC

lmm wrote: post #41

WalterBright wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's mostly true. What's also mostly true is people have a mostly incorrect perception of their abilities. It's like when 85% of drivers believe they are above average. If it was mostly untrue, they'd be crushed by a competitor who did a better job.

> If it was mostly untrue, they'd be crushed by a competitor who did a better job. This is incredibly naive. The same logic would say that if project estimates were mostly wrong in a given company then they'd be crushed by a competitor who did a better job. And yet project estimation is notoriously terrible across the whole industry.