Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Adobe Got Rid of Traditional Performance Reviews

linkedin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 45 posts

Re: How Adobe Got Rid of Traditional Performance Reviews

#21

Post by garenp »

coldcode wrote: post #6

This is a good idea but requires a far better quality of manager. The question is whether a company can find and promote and train them to make good decisions all up the chain (assuming each manager level does the same thing all the way up to the President or CEO). If this doesn't work you wind up with cronyism.

It's striking to me that I've never seen or heard of a performance review process that allows for employees to provide feedback on how well their manager is doing. Sometimes a manager is just not a good fit for the group that they're managing, and like all people they too make mistakes, but all the efforts to "measure" things does not apply to them, which I can't imagine should exist in a universe that has the word "fair" in it's vocabulary.

Re: How Adobe Got Rid of Traditional Performance Reviews

#24

Post by [deleted] »

garenp wrote: post #21
coldcode wrote: post #6

This is a good idea but requires a far better quality of manager. The question is whether a company can find and promote and train them to make good decisions all up the chain (assuming each manager level does the same thing all the way up to the President or CEO). If this doesn't work you wind up with cronyism.

It's striking to me that I've never seen or heard of a performance review process that allows for employees to provide feedback on how well their manager is doing. Sometimes a manager is just not a good fit for the group that they're managing, and like all people they too make mistakes, but all the efforts to "measure" things does not apply to them, which I can't imagine should exist in a universe that has the word "…

[deleted]

Re: How Adobe Got Rid of Traditional Performance Reviews

#25

Post by jamdavswim »

pgs_pants wrote: post #22

Heh. Performance reviews in Adobe: "Hmm.. a new security flaw in flash every day this year. Well done, bonus for you!"

The purpose of performance reviews should be to change behavior. If neither the manager or employee leave the review with a plan to do something different than they did before the review, then it effectively accomplished nothing.

Anything that doesn't create action is just noise.

Re: How Adobe Got Rid of Traditional Performance Reviews

#26

Post by hopeless »

garenp wrote: post #20
hopeless wrote: post #18

The headline is a little misleading: they got rid of annual performance reviews in favour of more frequent performance discussions. I'm working for a startup building a performance plan/review SaaS app and we've always tried to encourage customers to use 3-4month reviews periods — but almost all are wedded to the idea of annual reviews. If you're stuck on an annual cycle, at least make sure the manager and employee h…

The problem with setting very concrete goals like this, is that whenever you don't precisely meet them, they can be made to be a knock against you. As a result, it's then in your interest to set goals that are as easy to achieve as possible. I can't imagine that aiming for mediocrity serves the company or the employee well.

And setting vague goals which may, or may not, have been achieved is better for the employee or the company?!

But you're right to an extent, and I skipped over it. There's a class of things (call them skills, behaviours or competencies) which aren't suited for evaluation through measurement: "teamwork", "leadership" etc. These are not goals and it's important to understand the difference. For competencies it's best to evaluate them on a simple scale (say 1-10, we don't even label the exact score) so the discussion naturally becomes a bit fuzzy and less concrete — because the concepts are fuzzy. Let's be honest, you want employees to improve in these competencies but there's really no effective way to evaluate them.

Plans and reviews should be driven by the measurable stuff (goals) and the employee's development is driven by discussions not scoring of their skills/competencies/whatever-you-want-to-call-them

Re: How Adobe Got Rid of Traditional Performance Reviews

#27

Post by hopeless »

garenp wrote: post #20
hopeless wrote: post #18

The headline is a little misleading: they got rid of annual performance reviews in favour of more frequent performance discussions. I'm working for a startup building a performance plan/review SaaS app and we've always tried to encourage customers to use 3-4month reviews periods — but almost all are wedded to the idea of annual reviews. If you're stuck on an annual cycle, at least make sure the manager and employee h…

The problem with setting very concrete goals like this, is that whenever you don't precisely meet them, they can be made to be a knock against you. As a result, it's then in your interest to set goals that are as easy to achieve as possible. I can't imagine that aiming for mediocrity serves the company or the employee well.

Also, the outcome when reviewing a goal doesn't have to be a binary achieved/failed. You could have something like failed/nearly-met/met/exceeded/wildly-exceeded

Re: How Adobe Got Rid of Traditional Performance Reviews

#28

Post by Iftheshoefits »

pinaceae wrote: post #23

So, after actually reading the article: Adobe had a dysfunctional system were managers were not giving any feedback during the year, waiting for the annual performance review. So essentially no management at all.

That's pretty typical, in my experience, actually. This is true even when 1-1 meetings are scheduled more regularly. Management has a vested interest in making sure that their department budgets are large, but that their payroll budgets aren't, and protecting the company (for small-ish companies) or their managers (in larger corporations, where 'departments' are better thought of as companies-within-the-company, and managers' managers are the 'owners'). With the possible (and infrequent) exception of front-line managers, an employee is going to do better for himself if he assumes the relationship with management is more adversarial than collegial.

Re: How Adobe Got Rid of Traditional Performance Reviews

#29

Post by BrandonY »

> Since the new system was implemented, involuntary departures have increased by 50%: this is because...the new system requires executives and managers to have regular “tough discussions” with employees...rather than putting them off until the next performance review cycle.

Hrm. 50% increased firings seems kinda high to blame entirely on frequency of review. Were these guys bad and the managers just didn't realize it under the old system? Or do they always fire one unlucky guy every review cycle and just do the same thing but more frequently now?

Re: How Adobe Got Rid of Traditional Performance Reviews

#30

Post by abraininavat »

yofx wrote: post #15

This certainly is good improvement. However ,for this method to work you really have to have good manager who understands issues, have vision and puts Org. interest and employees interest before self interest. Since I started my career I had couple of selfish , egocentric and narcissistic managers ( mostly Indians, sorry but truth) who literally tried to block my career path. So I would suggest not just have everythi…

Why is it relevant to say they were Indian? As if your anecdotal experience says anything about managers or Indians in general
Post reply on HN