
How Adobe Got Rid of Traditional Performance Reviews - tmbsundar
https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140206114808-15893932-how-adobe-got-rid-of-traditional-performance-reviews?trk=object-title
======
Ensorceled
I gave up on the effectiveness of yearly performance reviews more than 20
years ago when I got a bad review for spending 20% of my time on internal
company support instead of 10%. I had been sending my boss weekly reports all
year and the week before my review he added up the time and decided my
priorities were wrong. That review cost me more than 4K in bonuses and raises.
Protesting to the VP made no difference.

When I resigned two days later the SVP got involved, gave me almost 10K in
bonuses and raises and promoted me to a lead role on another team to keep me.

I've seen nothing but problems ever since; morale issues caused by
disappointing raises and bonuses, problem employees left to fester until the
review, a week or more of lost productivity as everybody fills in massive 360
surveys and then argues over them for.

Weekly 1-1 meetings with regular review checkpoints make far more sense.

------
darklajid
Hi, my name is Ben and I just filled out my first 'traditional' performance
review ever. I guess the company's trying to act mature or something. I feel
like sharing..

The whole form was full of buzzwords, felt moronic and - useless. You were
supposed to judge yourself in various ways, with arbitrary scales and that
thing was full of vague descriptions that could've just as easily been part of
a horoscope. Or .. a fortune cookie.

I'm tempted to send an update to my performance review and link to this
article, maybe we can drop this 'tradition' after one (miserable) attempt? Or
.. I post it on our Yammer. God, we're a hip company..

~~~
herge
The thing to remember about performance reviews (especially for technical
people who's responsibilities don't change that much) is that your first one
takes forever to write, but then you can copy-paste from year-to-year.

~~~
hamburglar
And that it's impossible for the people who place stock in them to distinguish
earnest buzzword-laden self promotion from mockery, so have fun with it.

------
hopeless
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 have regular meetings so those goals and the current progress are
frequently in the forefront of their minds. There's no point getting to
December and _then_ remembering what you and your team were supposed to be
doing

Don't set 2 A4 pages full of "goals", including unverifiable stuff like
"maintaining a happy, positive atmosphere" like my managers at IBM did. Set
3-4 clear goals with defined metrics (hint: if there's not a metric to
measure, it's not a goal). Some goals are also amenable to breaking down into
milestones.

~~~
garenp
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.

~~~
rpwilcox
Yup. And after getting dinged once or twice in a review, metrics get gamed
consciously or unconsciously. The mind tends to avoid pain.

If management lays down some metric like "higher velocity by 20%" or "20% more
bugs closed", don't be surprised when they get it and it turns out to not
really be effective. (From imperceptible Story Point Inflation to 20% more
technical debt, or bugs mysteriously skipping the bug tracking system...)

------
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?

~~~
sharkweek
I know a few people at Adobe so this is anecdotal, but I was under the
impression from them that turnover was pretty low, so I'm curious if the %
looks a little inflated just based off the relative numbers.

------
pinaceae
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.

~~~
Iftheshoefits
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.

~~~
djKianoosh
"...an employee is going to do better for himself if he assumes the
relationship with management is more adversarial than collegial"

It's sad, but I wish I knew this (or maybe convinced myself to believe it)
sooner in my career. Young professional tech people are too naive/trusting to
know better. Glad and happy I went independent, cause that kind of environment
just doesn't align with my values :)

------
codegeek
Annual Performance Reviews is one of the reasons why I chose to be a
consultant. Really. I always have a smile on my face when my boss announces
the dreaded annual review time in a meeting and then looks at me and goes "Not
you of course". Love the feeling that I don't have to worry about that crap.

You may not like Adobe for many reasons but this move is definitely worth a
welcome. It is high time companies stop this madness of "annual performance
reviews" which really does not mean much.

""The aim is to give people information when they need it rather than months
after teachable moments have passed,"

Exactly. You just cannot sit down one fine day (read: end of the year) and
discuss the performance for the entire year. Just does not work for human
beings like that. We are good and bad on different days. Some days, we are
ultra productive, some we just slack off. I would rather have my team/manager
talk to me more often about what I am doing right when it actually happens.
Same with what I did not do well _at the time_ when it happened. This gives me
the opportunity to learn quickly.

The end of year discussion in reality is more like "I do not really know the
details of what you did exactly but I know you were ok for the most part. Here
is a couple of things you can change, blah blah. You get a satisfactory rating
blah. " That's for most of us. A few unlucky ones get the shorter end of the
stick "We have to fire the bottom 5% and we thought you are one of those. Not
much specifics specially compared to co-workers"

I want real metrics and feedback to be incorporated in my review. Not the end
of year survey sent to a few people I choose who will mostly say good things
about me (hopefully). By real feedback, I mean the email that my customer sent
saying "You saved my life today. You are awesome". This email should be
filed/shared with my manager who will then know the background of why the
customer said so. stuff like that is real feedback.

The biggest problem I see with performance reviews is the fact that there is
no way to compare my work with my co-workers in terms of effectiveness,
customer satisfaction and quality delivery. I m not saying that it should
become a competition of who is better but there must be a way to tell me that
someone else did a better job at xyz while I was really good at abc.

"It also bolsters accountability because managers have far more responsibility
for setting employee compensation than under the old system"

This. A 1000 times. It is sickening to hear the same old argument from your
direct manager that "sorry if I could, I would give you a better raise. But my
hands are tied because I am told so". One huge reason why I quit working
fulltime and became a consultant. You pay me what we agreed and I live with
it. When my contract rolls, I might ask for a raise and if you decline, it is
my choice to stay or move on. Either way, no one is forced into anything.

Couple of others useful links with details on this:

[0]
[http://www.hreonline.com/HRE/view/story.jhtml?id=534355695&](http://www.hreonline.com/HRE/view/story.jhtml?id=534355695&)

[1] [https://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/tag/performance-
review](https://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/tag/performance-review)

~~~
judk
The problem is that healthy teams already give feedback at teachable moments.
The whole point of a Performance Review Process is to force unhealty teams
into barely acceptable behaviors, and provide a thin veneer of justification
for compensation choices made by management.

Such a process should be designed to minimize the damage of fraud, not try to
somehow trick people into being mature teammates.

------
yofx
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 everything done by your manager , which apparently
leads to bureaucracy, rather have at least another check ( another manager,
group) review what your manager is saying.

~~~
abraininavat
Why is it relevant to say they were Indian? As if your anecdotal experience
says anything about managers or Indians in general

~~~
yofx
My comment was in general what I think could be better way for evaluation and
while citing that I phrased my personal past experience with Indian managers.
It was no way on stereotypical side.

------
jay_kyburz
So, nobody commented on this..

"Once a year, managers make adjustments in employee compensation".

Performance reviews are supposed to be a two way street. We talk about if the
employee is adding value to the company, how both parties could improve to
create more more value, then negotiate how much the company will pay to have
the employee stay.

Sure give feedback early and often. You really should be talking every day
with your manager in the daily standups.

But lets be honest, if you are still only doing annual pay reviews there is
still just one meeting a year that matters.

------
orofino
Alright, well I suppose I'll play the role of contrarian.

Performance reviews should be given in the context of preset goals. Without
defined goals, a review is pointless. You might as well be commenting on the
weather for all it is worth.

I break my goals up into three general categories when I give them: tactical,
strategic, and developmental. Tactical items are boring shit, do your job,
close your tickets, answer the phone, etc. Strategic goals push the business
forward, assist on a project, visit a customer, or implement a new thing.
Developmental goals are all about you: attend some training, mentor a peer, or
learn a new thing.

Goals should evolve with the employee. Have you just started? I'm giving you
goals to familiarize yourself with the business. Sit with the CS team, the
sales team, or some of the product meetings. Have you been here forever? I'm
giving you responsibility to mentor peers, do some lunch and learns, or take
on a new project. Craft goals for your team to fill gaps in the team's
capabilities and to shape key employees for advancement.

Performance reviews aren't inherently bad, they provide a really clear
milestone or report on how you're meeting these goals. We'll talk about them
weekly during our one on ones, but this codifies what we've been discussing
into something more tangible. They're where the rubber meets the road and
seeing yourself rated on your goals really calls attention to performance.

Reviews and goals may sound like corporate bullshit to you, but that's just
because your manager sucks. I've had several excellent managers who leverage
goals to push me towards new opportunities. My reviews are largely a
formality, I know where I stand with my manager, but I don't think that's the
case with most employees. Perhaps I just haven't been burned badly enough by
bad managers in the past.

~~~
summerdown2
> Performance reviews should be given in the context of preset goals. Without
> defined goals, a review is pointless.

The last time I worked as a permanent employee, yearly appraisals were built
out of three factors:

a) Performance against defined goals.

b) Helping the company meet its social programme.

c) Moving the company forward.

... with the last two undefined. People could go into their appraisal with all
their defined goals met, only to be told they'd only got 1/3 of what was
needed.

Just before I left they changed it again to stress they wanted everyone to go
above and beyond, so simply meeting your objectives would in future get a
"progressing" result, which was below average. There was, literally, no way to
guarantee a favourable result without playing politics.

That said, however, I don't think I'd like the solution where the system just
works better. My ideal solution would be to have no annual goals or targets at
all (which is the position I'm in currently as a contractor).

I don't think it's an understatement to say that my opinion is that metrics
are amongst the most evil things ever invented in the corporate world, and
frequently the root of all trouble.

In case that seems a hyperbolic statement, I'm thinking for example of the
sub-prime issues which almost brought down the world financial systems and was
in my opinion caused by the needs of some managers to put sales figures above
ethics to make their yearly targets.

------
coldcode
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.

~~~
garenp
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.

~~~
jacalata
Really? I know at Microsoft (under the old system, at least) I was asked for
feedback on my manager to give to his manager every year.

------
outside1234
Hilarious - I was wondering where Microsoft copied this system from. This is
exactly the new Microsoft system.

------
ajays
I dunno... given the perpetual problems with Flash, the password leaks, etc.,
I wouldn't hold up Adobe as a paragon of excellence.

~~~
RogerL
That's essentially an ad hom. Their product ability has nothing to do with the
merits of the HR.

~~~
lmm
The measure of good HR should be a successful company.

~~~
herge
So Apple has the best HR?

~~~
lmm
Quite possibly. Certainly I'd be interested to hear if there's anything
unusual about their HR practices.

------
bentcorner
Sounds similar to what Microsoft did a few months ago:
[http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/12/5094864/microsoft-
kills-s...](http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/12/5094864/microsoft-kills-stack-
ranking-internal-structure)

------
pertinhower
"That is her picture, to the left"? Uh... awkward?

------
michaelochurch
Performance reviews are terrible, because there will always be error, and
people who are overrated get complacent and those who are underrated get
pissed.

If the manager's any good, people know how they're doing. Okay, so what if the
manager's _not_ good? Then the employee's performance, if low, isn't really
his fault.

There's not much upside to reviews, because companies will either (a) find
ways to give bonuses and advancement to top performers regardless of what they
formally score, or (b) won't, but reviews won't help them.

They exist for two reasons. One is to intimidate people. But that just doesn't
work. Intimidating people into working hard leads to a useless product. The
second is to generate a paper trail before firing people. But I think PIPs and
performance reviews are a really bad solution. Better is to fire as soon as
the problem is evident and irremediable, but to give severance instead of the
2-month "walking dead" phase in which he shits all over morale.

The worst thing about formalized reviews is that they inhibit internal
mobility. Top performers don't want to leave, for fear of risking a bad
review. But in most companies, no one wants to take on the 80% of people who
are "just average", even if they might become A players on a better-fit
project. That makes departmental residency permanent and causes the "warring
departments" phenomenon for which Microsoft is known.

------
pgs_pants
Heh. Performance reviews in Adobe:

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

~~~
jamdavswim
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.

