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

Designing an Engineering Performance Management System from Scratch

blog.gitprime.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 70 posts

Re: Designing an Engineering Performance Management System from Scratch

#41

Post by eggpy »

megous wrote: post #21
emtel wrote: post #13

Formal performance reviews are the worst method for evaluating your workforce that has ever been tried, except for all the others. For me, performance reviews are the single most demoralizing aspect of working at a large company. They are doubly demoralizing because I can see so many things wrong with them, but also can't imagine any system that would work better. So what's wrong with them? 1. Over the long term, the…

I haven't worked for a corp yet, but wouldn't another problem be that you're a team/system, but perf. review is focussed on the individual, and assumes that's where the problems or the success of the team arises from? So it's a bit reductionist.

Hopefully the manager of the team is also subject to performance reviews. Generally the manager of the team is responsible for the performance of the team, meaning the manager fails if the team fails or has significant problems.

This is highly dependent on company environment however and obviously can come with it's own set of motivations and problems.

Re: Designing an Engineering Performance Management System from Scratch

#42

Post by all2 »

walshemj wrote: post #39
all2 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My gut tells me that these metrics are in place because upper management does not trust you to be objective or consistent when it comes to your people. Rather than actually trust your judgement, they give you a checklist and tell you to check the boxes. Along with a lack of trust, there's also the need for a paper trail in some states if it comes down to firing someone who needs firing. Without an appropriate paper t…

No its really because: 1 In order for hr to justify themselves. 2 As a hypocritical way to cut the pay quanta.

Just for giggles, lets say that a large company doesn't need an HR person or department.

What are the alternatives? Is this something we could build an automated system around? Could the functions be moved to managers (hiring, firing, pay, etc.)? It seems like moving this way would be somewhat like implementing the officer/NCO relationship in the US military.

Are there benefits for non-specialized decision making as it applies to employees?

> pay quanta.

What's that?

Re: Designing an Engineering Performance Management System from Scratch

#43

Post by NewsAware »

all2 wrote: post #42
walshemj wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No its really because: 1 In order for hr to justify themselves. 2 As a hypocritical way to cut the pay quanta.

Just for giggles, lets say that a large company doesn't need an HR person or department. What are the alternatives? Is this something we could build an automated system around? Could the functions be moved to managers (hiring, firing, pay, etc.)? It seems like moving this way would be somewhat like implementing the officer/NCO relationship in the US military. Are there benefits for non-specialized decision making as…

>> pay quanta.

> What's that?

"paying a lot". So basically as away to combat a (perceived) inflation in salaries

Re: Designing an Engineering Performance Management System from Scratch

#44

Post by all2 »

NewsAware wrote: post #43
all2 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just for giggles, lets say that a large company doesn't need an HR person or department. What are the alternatives? Is this something we could build an automated system around? Could the functions be moved to managers (hiring, firing, pay, etc.)? It seems like moving this way would be somewhat like implementing the officer/NCO relationship in the US military. Are there benefits for non-specialized decision making as…

>> pay quanta. > What's that? "paying a lot". So basically as away to combat a (perceived) inflation in salaries

So, amongst other things, it could refer to salary and raise confidentiality agreements as a way to reduce employee negotiating power?

Re: Designing an Engineering Performance Management System from Scratch

#45

Post by giobox »

walshemj wrote: post #39
all2 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My gut tells me that these metrics are in place because upper management does not trust you to be objective or consistent when it comes to your people. Rather than actually trust your judgement, they give you a checklist and tell you to check the boxes. Along with a lack of trust, there's also the need for a paper trail in some states if it comes down to firing someone who needs firing. Without an appropriate paper t…

No its really because: 1 In order for hr to justify themselves. 2 As a hypocritical way to cut the pay quanta.

I think HR can justify its existence probably just fine in the absence of annual performance reviews.

Off the top of my head: Healthcare (especially in the US - as a non-native I was truly shocked the amount of HR time that is spent managing this...), benefits, immigration issues, legal disputes, compliance, pay, hiring and firing, disabilities... there’s plenty for a competent HR team to do at most medium or larger sized enterprises that isn’t performance reviews.

Re: Designing an Engineering Performance Management System from Scratch

#46

Post by Renaud »

I liked the idea of Objectives and Key Results (OKR), a system that was started at IBM and brought over by John Doerr to Google and others[1]: short term goals alongside long term goals, set at the company level and the individual level, constant review and adjustment of the short term goals, disconnection of these metrics from employee bonus.

The idea is to get to you goals faster and re-evaluate them for relevance as you go along. Since they are not directly connected to pay there is less of a perverse effect where people are incentivised to work on improving their KPI at the expense of the rest.

[1]:"Measure what matters", by John Doerr

Re: Designing an Engineering Performance Management System from Scratch

#47

Post by mkobit »

emtel wrote: post #13

Formal performance reviews are the worst method for evaluating your workforce that has ever been tried, except for all the others. For me, performance reviews are the single most demoralizing aspect of working at a large company. They are doubly demoralizing because I can see so many things wrong with them, but also can't imagine any system that would work better. So what's wrong with them? 1. Over the long term, the…

I read about the culture of Valve a few years ago and it seemed interesting. What have you seen come out that changed your opinion?

Re: Designing an Engineering Performance Management System from Scratch

#48

Post by nradov »

eggpy wrote: post #41
megous wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't worked for a corp yet, but wouldn't another problem be that you're a team/system, but perf. review is focussed on the individual, and assumes that's where the problems or the success of the team arises from? So it's a bit reductionist.

Hopefully the manager of the team is also subject to performance reviews. Generally the manager of the team is responsible for the performance of the team, meaning the manager fails if the team fails or has significant problems. This is highly dependent on company environment however and obviously can come with it's own set of motivations and problems.

Many organizations, especially larger ones, have a matrix structure in which project teams pull in resources who report to multiple different managers. So there may be a disconnect between the reporting manager and the team.

It's also just as difficult to evaluate team performance as individual performance. With knowledge workers everything is so subjective, and trying to put objective metrics on it ends up being self defeating due to people gaming the system in ways that harm the broader organization.

Re: Designing an Engineering Performance Management System from Scratch

#49

Post by walshemj »

all2 wrote: post #42
walshemj wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No its really because: 1 In order for hr to justify themselves. 2 As a hypocritical way to cut the pay quanta.

Just for giggles, lets say that a large company doesn't need an HR person or department. What are the alternatives? Is this something we could build an automated system around? Could the functions be moved to managers (hiring, firing, pay, etc.)? It seems like moving this way would be somewhat like implementing the officer/NCO relationship in the US military. Are there benefits for non-specialized decision making as…

Its the amount the pay bill increases sorry its a HR/IR term

Re: Designing an Engineering Performance Management System from Scratch

#50

Post by babesh »

donavanm wrote: post #30
deegles wrote: post #11

"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." In this case, the measure is your position on the career ladder, not e.g. the success/failure of your product or company as a whole (unless that is required to advance). I feel that because of this, performance management at big companies leads to unnecessary product churn. Think about how many messaging apps Google has released, or how every product…

The phrase at my current work place is Promtion Oriented Architecture. Ive seen three general approaches, that I like. First the role descriptions & leveling guidelines have deemphasized complexity. Words like complex, large, feature, or new have been reduced or replaced where possible. Second there an emphasis on (business) value delivered. Fixing a broken system can provide as much or more long term value than buil…

No wonder so many people are kissing up to the senior engineers.
Post reply on HN