You could evaluate your boss, your VP, or people who worked for you, or anyone else you worked with anywhere in the company. It was basically a small survey you could fill out about anyone in the company, which they and their manager would see. What we did have was 360 reviews once a year. You were paid whatever they thought the max was for your skillset, based on a bunch of data they had on what people at other companies got paid for similar work. Raises were completely divorced from any performance assessment. You had a constant feedback loop with your manager on performance, but nothing was ever formal. ![]() It was assumed that your performance was good to excellent, otherwise you wouldn't be working there anymore. ![]() This is what I loved about working at Netflix. Maybe current Facebook employees can comment, however. Also, things like the number of reviews commented on could be easily gamed by adding a "+1!" as a comment which sounds like another undesirable place to work at. Every time someone requests a meeting, they are expected to give a "thank you" which is one of the measures for performance. Everyone knows that the performance reviews are based on lazy stats, so they game the stats. ![]() I heard from my friends at Facebook that the environment there is equally crazy. It was very stressful, even though I was a high performer, because it didn't foster the type of environment I wanted to work at, which is collaborative. I needed to make sure that my rank was as high as I could make it, which really sucked during performance time. All it does is create a zero-sum game, so I have no incentive to compliment anyone else. This is the biggest problem with stack ranking software engineers, the practice I had to endure while at a well known software company.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |