
Performance Reviews Can Kill Your Culture - feross
https://fs.blog/2019/11/performance-reviews-kill-culture/
======
sudeepj
> The success of one person means the failure of another.

In ideal world perf reviews should not degenerate into this. In real world, it
is a zero-sum game. One example is that the budget for giving increments/hikes
is always limited. To reward one individual means giving less to someone else.
Second example is that of promotions. As you go up the ladder, there are fewer
positions and competition is more. I can't see any other way but to stack rank
the employees. The criteria used may be flawed, but that does not mean that
ranking is not needed.

Talking about criteria: if its too objective people will game it, if its too
subjective then all sorts of human factors come into the play.

Finding a solution for this has always been a holy grail and every now and
then a company claims that "they-do-it-differently". Even if a company does
this really well it only says about that _point_ in time. It is a different
thing to sustain that year over year. All companies have issues in their perf
review. They only differ in toxicity.

------
Fooob66a
My take is that they are inherently bad for the relationship, as they are:

a) asymmetrical

b) biased and subjective even when they're framed in terms of metrics

They are essentially a star rating of how compliant an employee is and how
much the employer likes them.

------
downerending
A review that's anything other than "great year, keep up the good work" is a
sign that you need to move on.

Good management doesn't enumerate how you suck. Good management tells you your
priorities, helps you eliminate blockers, cheers you on, and tells everyone
that will listen how awesome their team is.

~~~
zaphod12
That's completely absurd - a good review should highlight and summarize the
feedback you've been steadily getting on how you can be a better and more
effective employee. It should definitely highlight your success, but it
shouldn't paper over what you could be better at. How the hell else do you
improve? I've never had a report who didn't ask for more feedback, and the
vast majority of people genuinely want to know how they can grow and become
better what they're doing.

This article talks a lot about forced ranking - I agree that is a pox on
humanity. But actionable feedback is the lifeblood of improvement.

Frankly, management that doesn't give actionable feedback and instead just
tells you to keep doing precisely what you're doing is a sign you need to move
on, because they don't care about your future.

~~~
downerending
Helpful feedback is welcome, especially when solicited. But it doesn't belong
in an official review, and should be timely, not on some yearly basis.

When your manager puts a negative word on paper, you know it's over. Or, put
from the other direction, if you're a manager, don't crap on your people and
expect them to stay.

------
Yhippa
For all of the good points made in the article, the suggested fix is very
weak. I am not a fan of performance management as described in the article.
You end up sacrificing teamwork.

Depending on how much money is at stake you will see all kinds of toxic
behavior. On the other hand if you don't aggressively send signals for poor
performers you are left with a bunch of unmotivated people.

One of the better ways I've seen it work is to reward employees through
quarterly bonuses depending on their performance. You'll quickly know where
you stand in your boss's and organization's eyes.

~~~
sjg007
> On the other hand if you don't aggressively send signals for poor performers
> you are left with a bunch of unmotivated people.

I never understood this rationale... It's lacks accountability all the way
back to the beginning of the employer-employee relationship. Why did you hire
these folks in the first place?

------
johnminter
This article sounds much like the view of W. Edwards Deming, who called for
the elimination of the annual performance appraisal. His rationale was, "The
fact is that the system that people work in and the interaction with people
may account for 90 or 95 percent of performance."[1]

[1] [https://blog.deming.org/2012/10/dr-deming-called-for-the-
eli...](https://blog.deming.org/2012/10/dr-deming-called-for-the-elimination-
of-the-annual-performance-appraisal/)

