
Ask HN: How does your company do performance reviews? - maruhan2
Share your company&#x27;s performance review methods (or even link to your performance review forms), and your thoughts on them.
======
rootlocus
My company uses quarterly reviews. Here are the metrics my company uses to
review each developer:

1\. We have an in-house developed tool that tracks git and mercurial commits
and calculates the test coverage and code quality for each individual
developer.

2\. We use jira to track the number of points each developer burns (points are
shared between developer, reviewer and QA). We also track the number of bugs
each developer introduces because closing a bugfix is not possible without
first assigning the developer who introduced the bug to the jira task.

3\. We use peer reviews where each team member rates each other team member on
a scale from 1 to 5 (3 being considered sufficient) on aspects like
availability, communication, reliability and result orientation.

4\. Team leaders offer subjective input on each team member.

Of course, many of the metrics will be skewed or won't reflect the reality,
which is why the team lead has the right to make adjustments to the final
mark.

This being said, one of my colleagues and friend was "forced" to quit the
company because he scored really low on the jira burn rate metric. He was
given a tremendously huge task which nobody cared to properly estimate and
break into smaller tasks. As a result he spent 6 monts working on the
equivalent of 2 weeks of estimation points. The management (including the team
lead which is otherwise a great leader and an awesome person) didn't want to
assume any blame for this.

~~~
kkanojia
"one of my colleagues and friend was "forced" to quit the company because he
scored really low on the jira burn rate metric"

This sounds totally insane. I Cannot believe this happens in real world.

~~~
humanrebar
It sounds like justification for a decision made for less quantitative
reasons.

Managers don't say, "So let's see who's the worst performer... it's Tom!
Weird, he seems to be one of my best developers. Oh, well! The metrics say
he's the worst. Off to fire Tom!"

~~~
baldfat
You don't know many people who worked for Microsoft? They would let go the
bottom 10% of their staff every year.

"Best to Worst Ranking" is the most toxic and destructive environments.

Manu Cornet famous organization chart is the best example of this.
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/%22Org_c...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/%22Org_charts%22_comic_by_Manu_Cornet.png)

~~~
humanrebar
I was under the impression that those rankings were created through a series
of let's-sort-everyone meetings rather a pedantic application of metrics.

~~~
softawre
Yes they are, you are right. My company does them too, somewhat.

If you have to let go 20% of your staff, how do you do it? You have to rank
people...

------
badlucklottery
Large company, performance is based almost entirely on feedback from peers and
those you report to with check-ins every 6 months. Overall score from 1-5 with
a 3 being "meets expectations" and the most common rating by far.

The problem is that the feedback from superiors seems to be weighted _much_
higher so the peer feedback is almost useless so don't bother mentoring or
helping someone get back in front of their tasking. This leads to a lot of
I'm-working-so-hard theatrics instead of actually being efficient/effective
and delivering product.

Combine this with "suggested targets" (quotas) for the number of people in
each 1-5 bin, you end up with the usual stack ranking problem that getting on
the shittiest project (and keeping it that way to ward off competition) and
making it damn clear to your manager that they can't live without you is the
best strategy.

~~~
soneca
If there was a more balanced weighting between superiors, peers and
subortinates ratings, do you think these negatives outcomes would be avoided?

I just started at a company that kind of use this system. My first impression
is that it is a good system and the weighting seems fair. But I would like to
be aware of any potential pitfalls with it (not just for me, but for the
company also).

~~~
badlucklottery
>If there was a more balanced weighting between superiors, peers and
subordinates ratings, do you think these negatives outcomes would be avoided?

Not really because the stack ranking would still turn everything into a knife
fight. It might even be worse because people would blame their coworkers for
getting another 3 rating instead of everyone being unified in our hatred for
upper management and the performance system as a whole.

We recently had a big Pres/VP management shakeup and the new crew is
supposedly looking into changing the performance reviews but who knows how far
that'll go. But they did sort out our crazy hiring requirements almost
immediately so fingers crossed that they'll set some more fires before things
stabilize.

>But I would like to be aware of any potential pitfalls with it (not just for
me, but for the company also).

My only tip is to find a project lead/manager who didn't drink the kool aid.

------
throwaway9ac8
Oh don't get me started.

Fairly big (>1000 devs) company. Performance reviews are twice a year.

In theory: before each cycle, an employee and a manager meet to discuss
manager's expectations. If an employee "exceeds expectations" he or she gets a
good rating. The rating is then approved and bonus and compensation is
determined.

In practice: the rating is kind of determined by how employee's work
contributed towards "important goals" of the company. This contributes to a
deluge of half-assed work pushed into production just before the evaluation
begins. Also it of course depends on performance of the other devs. The
existence of the curve was never officially acknowledged but it is an open
secret that it indeed exists.

The evaluation process is extremely opaque and shrouded in mystery. An
employee (and his or her manager too) can never be certain that enough work
was done for a particular rating as they are subject to correction at the
highest levels of hierarchy (rumor has it that the CTO himself approves the
final ratings of all developers above certain level). The process is also
extremely long (easily exceeds 1.5 months) and taxing for line managers who
have to defend their subordinates' ratings against cuts.

The meetings between an employee and a manager are very awkward. In theory the
manager should discuss career prospects and deliver valuable feedback, but
what is the point of delivering feedback on something that happened 5 months
ago? Why would you wait for so long to do it? So everyone just goes through
the motions during these meetings as quickly as possible.

The whole process is very inefficient. Frankly, it stinks. (Personally, I've
fared fairly well so it is not an instance of sour grapes). My opinion it that
the only reason it exists is because it provides the potential of almost
authoritarian control and ample micromanagement opportunities.

I wonder, are my experience and feelings somehow special or is it a common
thing in our industry?

~~~
auxym
Wow, I work in a big, non-software-focused, multinational company, in a
mechanical engineer role. Your post describes our exact review process.

What more, it seems managers always set the expectation high, or vague, that
way _everyone_ always get 3/5 (meets expectations). By now I'm almost 100%
convinced that there is an official HR guideline that they are not allowed to
give higher than 3/5 overall rating.

~~~
jonnathanson
In my experience at huge companies, getting a 4 or a 5 is largely a paper-
trail formality that managers bestow on people they are grooming for
promotion. It's a political gift and a retention mechanism. Everyone else
always gets a 3, whether they've been kicking ass or competently coasting.

Systems like these create strong disincentives to focus on job performance
above and beyond a certain baseline, and strong incentives to focus on self-
promotion, politics, and lobbying for sexy projects and allocations.
Especially true when there is a forced curve or stack ranking involved.
(Spoiler alert: there is almost always a curve, whether formally mandated by
process, or informally expected by leadership.)

~~~
humanrebar
"We only hire the best."

"You can't _all_ get 5's!"

------
sawmurai
Medium sized company (just shy of 20 devs) plus a lot of sales and other
roles. We don't have specific performance reviews, only 1on1s where it's more
about identifying personal pain points and defining goals.

I think the lack of pressure is the reason why this company is the market
leader in its niche, has very low fluctuation and a very high quality code
base. I used to work in a sweat shop where we had to justify every 15 minutes
spent (via time tracking) ... never. Again.

~~~
softawre
Do you get yearly merit raises? Cost of living?

~~~
sawmurai
Can't really tell as I have only been on the team for about a year now, but I
have been told that you get raises if you ask for them and have enough
arguments to justify a raise. What about costs of living? We're based in
Zurich, CH.

~~~
kzisme
Normally (maybe it isn't the norm) employers give a percentage raise annually
or bi-annually for to accommodate for the "cost of living going up"

~~~
occamrazor
Inflation in Switzerland has been negative for the last two years. Most
companies did mot apply any cost of living adjustment, but I know some that
have reduced base salaries in accordance to inflation.

------
yttrium
I recently moved from a large (40k employees) company to a small one (600).

Performance reviews at the large company always involve a lot of paperwork,
self reviews, and hoping that your manager gives you good feedback. Reviews
are rated from 1-5 where 3 is the midpoint and is considered 'acceptable'.
Tbh, I started as an intern there, and I can recall three or four times
someone scored 4+ off the top of my head. Getting a 3 was so trivially easy it
was almost insulting. Getting a 5 once required a lot of work outside of the
office and usually meant you wouldn't be able to get it again the following
cycle.

Most of these incentive systems are just focused around being the best
personal brand manager anyway, because they incentivize employees to sign up
for the shittiest projects and then make a lot of noise and throw around a lot
of money and bullshit to make sure everyone knows that they're singlehandedly
saving the company.

At the small company, we mostly do small one on ones, and you set some yearly
goals for each fiscal year that you get evaluated against. There aren't any
'metrics' involved, and it seems mostly like it's aggregation of subjective
reviews from superiors and coworkers. This approach seems to work well for
everyone. We have a really technical developer who doesn't really do the
social game (and he's remote) and he does excellent every year. I'm more of a
mix (I like to communicate with endusers and so on) and I did well this year
too.

Frankly, I think the biggest thing is just getting out of big corporate
environments. They're tough for mental health, and they're tough to get ahead
in.

------
dan00
If you've performance reviews, then you also most likely have some kind of
metric, and if you've a metric people will start to game it.

A colleague of mine always said: you get what you measure.

~~~
rootlocus
Management at my company really likes to use jira estimation points as a
metric, which is why I always argue for more points and occasionally snatch
low hanging fruits (overestimated simple tasks). I'm aware it's stupid, which
is why I always point it out, but nobody seems to care. I was the "most
productive employee of the year" last year and while I didn't cheat by any
definition of the word, it certainly did affect my priorities.

~~~
throwaway413
This. In fact, at one of the last companies I was at, an agency of about 20,
devs were grouped into small teams (1-5) to work on different projects. While
we used Jira points - these _internal_ teams had _different_ measurements
regarding point count.

When I brought it up to various PMs and execs, I got the same answer - "that's
the way it's supposed to work."

And they used these point counts and burndowns to analyze performance of each
dev in comparison with the rest of the team as a whole!

So if you estimated 1 point for your story, but some other dev estimated 5 for
their story, and they are essentially the same tasks just on different
projects - that developer is 5x as productive as you are by their record.

------
ikurei
A related question: Should you do them? They don't seem useful in tiny
companies, where you can just see how everyone is doing, apart from informal
"What is worrying you" conversations. How big a company you have to be for
them to be useful/necessary?

~~~
humanrebar
It's hard not to have some sort of review process if you want to be able to
fire someone. If anyone challenges their dismissal for performance reasons,
you'll want a record of the "conversations" (1) you had. This is why a lot of
review processes include some sort of sign-off by the parties involved.

(1) Scare quotes around "conversations" because I've never seen management
approach an underperforming employee and then realize that _they_ had a big
part in that. Conversations tend to be more two-way than that.

~~~
davidvanleeuwen
In our situation, which is a relatively small company, it's used to keep
people energized, focused and well... happy. Without it, we had regular team
meetings where people talked about frustrations they had (and it exploded at
times).

I don't think having it around as way to fire someone is the right approach.

~~~
humanrebar
I'm a _huge_ fan of more informal one-on-one meetings. To the point where I
will consider a move if I'm not getting enough time with my management. I
don't consider those "performance reviews" though.

------
mabbo
The media have been very critical of Amazon's review process, partially
fairly, but mostly not.

At the end of every year, I picked 5-10 people I wanted feedback from-
teammates, people I've worked closely with, or people I genuinely wanted to
get opinions from. They'd each receive an email that I'd requested their
feedback and I'd receive around 10 requests for feedback from everyone who
asked for mine. The only mandatory one: everyone reviews their boss.

As well, at any time throughout the year, "Anytime" feedback of an identical
nature could be sent in. Usually, I sent these when someone had done something
amazing and I worried I'd forget it before review time, or I don't work with
them often.

Important to note: I can't ever read feedback given to me. I don't even know
if anyone I requested feedback from actually gave it or not.

Each review itself took a lot of time to write, 20 to 60 minutes was normal
for me. Everything was asked to be phrased in this way: Situation (what's the
background on what happened?), Behavior (what did the person do?), Impact
(what was the outcome, effect, etc?). You were expected to give a few good
examples and a few bad examples.

At the end of all of this review writing, my manager would read through all of
my feedbacks, and compile them into a single overall review with the common
themes from many reviews.

Downside: bad managers exist. Here's one person who makes the entire decision
and he's the only one reading your reviews. That's a lot of power and you need
to trust your manager not to abuse it. Also, that feedback is anonymous to
you. If someone is trying to sabotage you, you'd never know- but your manager
would, as they can read who sent it.

Upside: if you're into personal growth, an annual review is candy. Here's an
aggregate view of where you need to do better. With a good manager filtering
out bullshit and finding the real patterns that matter, you got so much out of
this.

On the other hand, it took like 2 days to write reviews, and you'd lose your
manager for a week or two while he read and compiled.

Of course, I say all this and should be using past tense: due in large part to
the media complaining that Amazonians are encouraged to "rat each other out",
and that the feedback system was actually a toxic part of the culture, the
company got rid of it all. Now you can only say short, nice things about each
other and your manager has even more power that he'll never have to justify.

It was good while it lasted.

~~~
Blackstone4
Ctl-V from above:

I know someone who works at Amazon just out of college.... out of 50 that
started in June 17, they have 7 left... every week, people get rated and given
a score out of 100%....every so often people are let go

~~~
mabbo
That's the craziest thing I have ever heard of. What role are they in? Is this
some kind of paid interview process?

Like, I want to believe you but if you're talking about normal everyday
developers it would be more reasonable for me to believe you are making this
up or misunderstanding something. It just sounds that weird to me.

~~~
Blackstone4
I don't want to say too much because I don't want my friend to get in trouble
(only 7 left!)....they work on the products in a major US city and aren't
developers.

------
davidvanleeuwen
Although we try to stay away from "creating a process" for everything, we've
gradually implemented a way for people to give feedback more organically. The
thing is, it's not the tool, form or questions you hand out - it's how people
use them and think about them.

Over a period of time we started using Impraise (impraise.com), although it's
not the best tool - it helps people to force to take the time and leave there
current mindset to focus on something like giving feedback (on an equal base,
because some people are just very good at giving feedback and keep on talking,
while others are struggling and need to write it down). Every quarter, you
review 2 other people. People read it, interpret it and carry on. However, I
sit down with them after everyone has filled in the questions on Impraise
(which are not the default ones, but they're pretty straightforward, like:
"how good is the quality of your colleague's work?"). This information is used
as a base to allow me to ask even more questions, like: "do you agree with
this statement?" or "what could you do to improve this situation this
colleague is describing?”. The result of this conversation are 4 things:

1\. self reflection,

2\. setting personal goals (which is mostly one of the things from the self
reflection, getting more focus/attention than other things, which is not
shared within the team),

3\. create and/or help out with team goals, something we should improve as a
team and shared within the team,

4\. feedback on the process itself.

These results are written down as notes and then reflected on the next time we
sit down.

We have some other tools, methods and things in place to have more of a
continuous feedback loop - but it remains a living thing, rather than a set in
stone method. If you have questions, you're always welcome to contact me :-)

~~~
kohnke
Hi David, interesting to read your post. My name is Bas Kohnke, co-founder/CEO
of Impraise (YC Summer 14). We are always looking for new ways to improve our
product, so please feel free to reach me at bas@impraise.com if you are
willing to share your experience and ideas. Thanks!

------
mvpu
I have used this method at every startup I worked for. It will only work for
companies that want to hire and keep good engineers. When you join the
company, your manager will lay out your strengths and areas to improve to _get
to the next level_ (in a direction you want to go) in the very first meeting.
Then, she meets with you every quarter and refines the vision for growth.
Between those meetings, she'll create opportunities for you to challenge
yourself, shine, and grow. That's it. All we care about is ownership,
accountability, and leadership -- and your peers will keep you in check. Our
job as leaders is to remove speed brakers and avoid pot holes. I can't think
of a better way than this -- "performance" reviews are meaningless.

------
gbrown_
I highly recommend checking out Bryan Cantrill's talk from Surge 2013 -
Leadership Without Management: Scaling Organizations by Scaling Engineers

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGkVM1B5NuI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGkVM1B5NuI)

~~~
ndh2
NSFW even with headphones due to some really funny moments.

------
zhte415
Fortune 500s...

Rating 1 - 5 (1 best, 5 worst).

Management required to restrict to rating quotas. These kick-in at a span-of-
control level of around FTE>50, and below that at the span-of-control manager
to manage. For some departments there's increased flexibility. Some managers
who really don't see the reason for filling their quota of 'good' (3)
sometimes trade with other managers. 1: ~3-5% 2: ~23-25% 3: ~50-60% 4-5: rest.

Formal performance reviews done annually, with interim (6 month) review. Now
is 6 month stage.

1-1s on a bi-weekly basis, always documented.

Formal performance review an opportunity to highlight and push to one's
manager what they may have forgotten or fell from their consciousness.

------
Blackstone4
I know someone who works at Amazon just out of college.... out of 50 that
started in June 17, they have 7 left... every week, people get rated and given
a score out of 100%....every so often people are let go

------
canadiancreed
Have had two since I started at the place I'm at now. It's basically very
nebulous "you're doing ok/you're not doing well in x" type reviews that they
get from the departments you're contracted out too. Recommendations are
usually "keep doing what you're doing/do more work/do work faster". You
provide feedback forms for how you feel youre doing in various areas, but
they're effectively useless as its the managers rebuttal that holds all the
weight. There's rumours of career planning being integrated into the mix, but
that's apparently been on the table for years with no change.

Had an associate of mine at the same company two weeks ago get a performance
review (more of a contract since he had to sign it), that said he had to
improve performance in a month or he'd be fired. The reasons? Too slow/too low
quality, but no specific measurable metrics to meet that he'd be able to use
to keep his job when re-evaluation comes up in a month.

Needless to say, performance evaluations aren't given a lot of thought here.
Wish they were.

------
dboreham
We stopped doing them a number of years ago after a discussion between
management and HR where we all came to the conclusion they were not
beneficial.

~~~
mabbo
So how do you decide on promotions, bonuses, raises, etc? All of that has to
happen via some process. If you're not doing any kind of performance reviews
then you're allowing managers to do it arbitrarily.

~~~
dboreham
There is a process, driven by actual reality rather than the (in my
experience) highly artificial formal performance review process. fwiw when I
worked as a manager in big companies, HR always told us that raises didn't
depend on performance reviews...

~~~
softawre
So what is the process? That's the crux of this question.

~~~
dboreham
People talking to each other.

------
tboyd47
We are a remote team, so metrics are very important for judging performance.
Some of the most important metrics are: time online (huge one), PRs opened,
PRs reviewed. There is a formal review process to give employees time to
improve performance before an action is taken.

I find that even with all these formalities, actions tend to be totally up to
the subjective judgment of management, just like any other company. Companies
are not legally bound to abide by the rules of their own HR department -- HR
is mainly there to provide an illusion of objectivity. In a conflict between
leadership and rank-and-file workers, HR will always side with leadership.
"Whose food I eat, his song I sing."

~~~
rorykoehler
Why is time online big (assuming more means better)? I do remote too and I
would never consider that to be important as long as the work gets done.

~~~
tboyd47
If you're employed full-time, the expectation is that you're giving your
employer roughly 40 hours a week. Nobody can code continuously for 8 hours a
day and be productive, but just being available is the bare minimum you can do
to be considered "working."

I've never heard anyone get cool points at our company for being online _more_
than 8 hours a day, but being online less than that (without reason) is
definitely frowned upon.

~~~
sidlls
I don't see the point: it seems like the company you're at is more or less
putting the infrastructure cost (rent, internet) on its employees and
otherwise treating them as though they ought to be working as if on-premises
in a "butts in the seat" style.

------
kzisme
Currently they don't exist - I've asked for a yearly one, but I suppose they
haven't found time to give me a review.

I've been at my current position (C# Dev) for almost a year and a half full
time and I worked part time for almost a half a year.

This seems to be far from normal, but since this is my first job out of school
I really just want to see:

\- If I'm performing to standard (Adding value) - which I think I am. \- If
raises are a thing at this company or in general with reviews.

We seem to be shifting towards a more I guess you could call it an "agile"
approach (due to our PM). Daily standup meetings talking about what we will
focus on for that day, allocate time for it, and report back the next day.

~~~
ultimateedition
You should really insist on a review. If you don't get feedback on how you're
doing in your career, it's at your expense. My company has no formal process,
I still force a review every year.

Also, I believe you should ask for a raise every year. Even if you've
completely stagnated professionally, your salary is decreasing continuously
with inflation.

Companies seem to take advantage of introverted people who are too afraid to
speak up about perfectly reasonable requests, like clarifying your performance
and goals. It definitely sounds like you're in that boat.

~~~
kzisme
I've reached out via email 2-3 times and twice in person. At a _very_ informal
meeting (about a project) I had mentioned it as well on 6/29, but nothing has
been said to me since.

I'm not terribly sure how to go about forcing the issue when managers are
unable to fit time into their schedule for me.

I wouldn't consider myself completely introverted, but I don't want to seem
needy (ie: cutting into other people's busy days/schedules)

Hopefully I hear something back soon, but I'm not holding my breath.

------
cnp
We do a 1-5 point based system bi-yearly, but I'm actually wondering how
people respond to under performing coworkers. I feel weighed down a bit
because a review is coming up and I can't imagine giving said person more than
a 2, but he is also a nice guy and tries very hard while simultaneously making
a mess of most things.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. We're typically asked to discuss
negative feedback with managers beforehand and it's important to note that
these reviews are not anonymous.

~~~
humanrebar
If a person is congenial and dependable there's usually a suitable niche in
any large enough org. The sweet spot is where things are stable and include
domain knowledge but aren't automatable yet.

Good team players that will get along with people and keep things running are
_very_ worthwhile in my opinion. Not everyone need to be able to invent their
own crypto currency from scratch.

If the problem is more severe, like an inability to code at all, then they
might just be in the wrong line of work.

~~~
softawre
Well said. I have found such positions for people like this twice now in my
career.

------
qbert
It doesn't. You may ask how then do they do raises? Largely, they don't. The
only way they manage to attract and keep people for at least a short period
(average tenure is short) is through the ever increasing value of the stock
options. Those are only awarded when you first join however so for those who
do manage to hold on for 4 years until they fully vest there is zero incentive
to stay longer. This is a major fintech company.

------
random098756
At Microsoft, (so the throwaway account). In theory: peer review + manager
comment on : your work, how you help others, how you reuse work done by other.
The reality: peer review is quite useless (that can help manager to give
examples feedback but nothing more). Manager's opinion on your work is the
only thing. So a big theorical system with bunch of HR documentation but a
terrible / useless process at the end.

------
debacle
Twice a year we do reviews. I have some KPIs I collect for my team, but most
managers don't. We also have the standard HR matrix of 1-5 scaling, but I
think it's actually quite effective at providing a framework.

Employees do self-assessments, then managers do assessments, then you meet for
your review. The review is more about being on the same page + communicating
future expectations.

------
drakonka
Yes; we have quarterly "check-in" reviews and a larger yearly review where
salary is considered. The process consists of peer and self reviews. We used
to have a rating system as well where in the yearly review you would get a
certain rating out of five options depending on how you did. The rating
portion was removed a couple of years ago.

------
wj
Would be interested to know what software people use for peer reviews?

~~~
softawre
Email

~~~
wj
That definitely doesn't meet our anonymity requirement. :)

------
_raoulcousins
Large company. Performance reviews always come with a non-negotiable raise.
The raise + budget issues result in 2-5 year gaps between employees getting
them.

------
kohnke
Hey I’m Bas Kohnke, YC S14 alum and CEO of Impraise
([https://impraise.com](https://impraise.com)), a feedback based performance
management solution. Having worked with different types of companies to revamp
their performance management processes, I’d be happy to share some of our
thoughts and experiences.

Internally, we run quarterly 360 degree reviews based on 3 questions: what
should this person, continue, stop, and start doing. Each person comes up with
their own goals and projects which they’re evaluated on. In between reviews we
share real-time feedback so that people always know where they stand and what
they can do to improve - in this way review results are never a surprise. Team
leads also hold regular 1-on-1s and check-ins with each team member (at least
twice a month).

A few things we’ve learned:

\- Simply prompting people to share more feedback isn’t enough. Education on
how to formulate actionable feedback and how to take and internalize received
feedback is essential for it to actually be effective

\- Strengths based feedback[1] is highly motivating

\- Reviews should always be followed up with 1-on-1 conversations during which
a development plan is formed

\- Continuous feedback throughout the year is essential to keep everyone on
track and ensure that people aren’t blindsided during reviews

\- Continuous and 360 degree feedback can help combat bias[2] in performance
reviews

\- If reviews are results based, goal-setting should always include equal
input from the individual and their team lead

There’s not a one size fits all approach to performance management, yet so
many companies try to fit their organization into a standard model. Many
companies are now customizing their own processes, picking and choosing the
elements that work best for their size, industry, culture and the specific
pains they want to solve. For example:

\- Ratings vs ratingless reviews

\- Anonymity vs non-anonymous reviews

\- Reviews linked to compensation decisions vs reviews focused solely on
development

\- Companies allowing people to choose their own reviewers

\- Results vs competency based reviews

For advice on the different performance management trends we’ve seen working,
feel free to reach out to us.

[1] [https://blog.impraise.com/360-feedback/constructive-
feedback...](https://blog.impraise.com/360-feedback/constructive-feedback-
that-doesnt-kill-motivation-performance-review)

[2] [https://blog.impraise.com/360-feedback/4-factors-hurting-
you...](https://blog.impraise.com/360-feedback/4-factors-hurting-your-
performance-appraisals-performance-review)

