Paraphrasing what a manager told me once: "If anything in your performance review is a surprise, then I have failed as a manager."
Coaching is not a purpose of a performance review. The coaching and communication should be an ongoing process that happens before the review. Problems should be brought up early enough that you have a chance to change or improve before it gets to the point of being written in a review. If this doesn't happen, it's a sign that the manager is either terrible at communication, not even trying to coach and improve their employees, or even sabotaging you on purpose.
Instead, the purpose of performance reviews is documentation. It can be for good or for bad, depending on the person's performance. It makes info available to others and preserves it in case you transfer departments, your manager leaves, etc. Like any other documentation, it creates overhead, but you have to weigh that against the value it provides, and IMHO that's what should determine whether you do it (and how often).
We have performance reviews not annually, but every few years.
My last review, the head of our division got really angry with me and gave me a very negative, punitive review.
What I am infuriated about is that never in that few years did I receive any negative feedback, and I tried to do exactly what our subdivision had decided as a group to do, and what the immediate superior had wanted. My last review was glowing, perfect. So I go from a perfect review to being treated like a failure, fireable, with no negative feedback in the interim.
Imagine if you in your area had discussed things, come to consensus decisions, you were willing to do everything asked of you, and then four years later someone higher up singles you out and yells at you for not doing what you're supposed to etc. As if you've been getting feedback that whole time.
The worst part of this is that I know someone in our area is close friends with this division head and basically complains about everyone except one person in our area.
So now I have this negative review, as if I were just being lazy, even impaired in my duties, and not doing my part when the whole time I just thought I was doing what we were supposed to.
I had something similar happen at my old company, an 8 person startup.
I was more or less asked to quit (coincidently I was planning to hand my notice in that day anyway) by the CEO. Never once had the CEO actually pulled me aside or talked to me about his perceived problems with me. He was perfectly happy with the quantity and quality of work I put out, but apparently there were cultural and attitude issues or something.
I was supposed to have a performance review/catchup every 3 months, I was very low contact with the CEO as he worked remotely and traveled a lot. I had never heard any problems from my supervisor before this final meeting with the CEO.
It was pretty shitty when he started bringing up things that he had problems with that happened 3 or 6 months ago. Things that I had never gotten more than a snarky slack message about.
Maybe if I had had those reviews, I would've worked on whatever issues he had, I may have been a happier employee and not wanted to quit, and he may have ended up with a nicer employee he didn't want to fire.
It really pissed me off and unfortunately (for both of us, really), I never got to tell him how I felt about the whole situation, as I wanted to get a good reference for my next job (which incidentally pays double what I was earning).
Same here but different reason. I worked in Software Engineering for a financial organization when I announced the arrival of my first child to head of HR (Monday). My performance review was scheduled for Tuesday but my manager postponed to Friday. I was fired (because of my baby) that Friday by head of HR instead of sitting down in 1-1 with my manager or CTO. They just didn't have the guts to tell me that my productivity will drop b/c of lack of sleep, etc.
Shitty move but lesson learned: don't announce the due date of your unborn child BEFORE a performance review! Better don't announce it at all if you wanna keep your job.
I take it that in the USA, pregnancy discrimination isn't illegal, or at least isn't for the father?
Terrible move from the company either way. Firing people is expensive, first you lose a whole lot of institutional knowledge, then hiring a person is expensive (especially if you use a recruiter), then you have to train a new person up, which takes about 3 months to get them up to speed.
The sensible option is to discuss options, such as working reduced hours (e.g. only afternoons) for a time. Of course, in many developed countries (the USA excluded), paid parental leave is legally guaranteed or even mandatory.
It could have been a positioning move to justify firing down the road. I freelance now but when I went through 9-5 I found the key to positive outcomes was always tied to confidence. The confidence I tried to harness cane in a form of acting like I was the boss with nobody above me. I found that my own bosses saw this as a strength and never questioned my judgement. Even when someone came back with logical counterpoints I'd stick up for my opinion very aggressively.
I can't imagine working in a place that yells at me - that would be the final nail in the coffin where I would that that person everything I think of them and their inaptitude to "manage". I guess that's why I no longer punch the clock.
> Even when someone came back with logical counterpoints I'd stick up for my opinion very aggressively.
I hate this so much. I hate it even more, because it's mostly true that it works. YMMV, and I'm talking of non-technical organisations or organisation where tech is a cost-centre rather than value-add.
Those who don't fully understand it (it being whatever technical disagreement or choice made), which is usually the majority, will side with you. The remainder are usually people who can see that the organisation is structured this way and either give up out of apathy or leave for greener pastures.
If someone literally yells at me, I'm out. Notice in that day, usually within the hour. If the organisation is willing to allow that behaviour, it's usually toxic. If I'm on contract (which I always am now), my opinion within that organisation will no longer be respected. Notice of non-renewal immediately.
I alternately contract and consult, and I wouldn't think it necessary to tell a client that, if they endorse yelling as interaction, I'm not sticking around. That's normal-people stuff--they should already know Because healthy environments don't do that.
No I don't tell clients that up front - although I don't think it's necessary to. It's like saying if someone assaults me, or my shortcomings are going to be publicly broadcasted throughout the company, I'd tell them that's not something I'm okay with. Nobody should expect either of those things to happen.
On being yelled at, it's only happened once - and I'm pretty sure the person doing the yelling was having a bit of a breakdown. Getting yelled at is a very strange thing in a work environment.
"Review" sounds official and somehow based on a methodology, but in reality it's just the subjective feelings of some dude. A dude that often has to pretend that he/she understands the technology, what is difficult or not, and who is doing good work.
As you have noticed, you can output the same quality of work and it can be seen as very good or not so good at different times, or with different people, because feelings.
That is so true. Probably why people leave every couple of years. I hate performance reviews. They try to be objective and yet so many personal feelings involved.
Finding a good manager is hard. Someone who understands tech and gives frequent objective feedback. That’s really really hard.
Most managers I’ve seen go into Management because they don’t like coding. They then want to be far away from it. That creates problems because they don’t understand why things are constantly regressing. They blame it on their engineers and start handing out shitty reviews when the actual problem was there is just a metric ton of code debt that they don’t want to hear about.
The other thing is they like being people managers. All the way up to Group managers (managers of managers). They truly enjoy re-orging people around. I guess that’s how they feel important. But they forget it’s the product that matters. As the org gets bigger, less and less people actually give a shit about the product as a whole.
I have yet to find a manager that takes code debt and product seriously. I’m on my Manager #10.
If you are a manager, I kindly urge you to listen both to your customers and your engineers. Get a reverse performance review. The world will be happier.
Sounds like it's time to move on. Every once in a while you'll run into some incompentent manager like that. The best thing to do is look for better opportunities elsewhere, move on and never look back.
That really sucks.
But also what's the point of even having reviews it if it's going to be years in between them? There doesn't seem to be any upside, but lots of downside
> what's the point of even having reviews if it's going to be years in between them?
Unfortunately, I would bet the point is to do exactly the kinds of things that "really sucks" which this individual encountered. I'd hazard a guess that the multi-year review situation isn't consistent, either. It probably is decided "it's review time" when management has decided things aren't going well, so they use the reviews to crap all over staff. I wouldn't be surprised if this review cycle comes immediately before a round of layoffs/redundancies, as well.
The whole experience in hindsight made me realize that annual reviews would be a lot better. Although I deeply empathize with the idea that performance reviews in general are kind of misguided, because you should be getting accurate feedback continuously.
How long ago was this? You could take it up with someone higher up the food chain, providing you can demonstrate your successes and prove the review is unjust. A decent company doesn't want to lose talented, hard working employees through the malicious actions of middle managers.
Same thing has happened to me before. I was in a funk about it for a while, but it gets easier--especially if you polish the 'ole resume and start looking for alternatives.
An opposing viewpoint from Andy Grove's High Output Management:
Let's talk about surprises. If you have discharged supervisory responsibilities adequately throughout the year, holding regular one- on-one meetings and providing
guidance when needed, there should never be surprises at a performance, right? Wrong. When you are using the worksheet, sometimes you come up with a message that will startle you. So what do you do? You're faced with either delivering the message or not, but if the purpose of the review is to improve your subordinate's performance, you must deliver it. Preferably, a review should not contain any surprises, but if you uncover one, swallow hard and bring it up.
If a manager discovers a long-standing issue whilst preparing for the performance review, then yes, they absolutely must "swallow hard and bring it up".
But not having noticed or provided feedback about that issue at any point in the past is still a failure of management.
I was a manager at Intel during the Grove era. The ranking & rating process of those days forced a team of 8 or so peer managers to look at the performance of all of their reports together. Having 7 other managers point out an issue with one of your reports tends to help you get calibrated. Is it a failure of management to be poorly calibrated about your own people? Yes, a common one.
In my view, giving someone a negative review is only one among many options for dealing with a performance issue. You could always give a neutral review (in terms of the overall rating) and discuss the issue with them verbally, or pledge to resolve the issue in the next year.
If it means you have to let someone have a neutral review that they don't deserve... swallow hard, and start managing after the review is done.
Remember that your employees will be interpreting the review in light of the corporate culture, which they are fully aware of. They will also know whether the problem that you discovered is real or not.
The cost-benefit still doesn't make sense to me.
He's talking about doing a very expensive & generally counter-productive activity in the off chance that you might uncover some insight about your employee.
I usually tell people the first half of High Output Management is good, but to skip the second half...
That's an opposing viewpoint to "If anything in your performance review is a surprise, then I have failed as a manager" if and only if managers are infallible.
> If anything in your performance review is a surprise, then I have failed as a manager.
I hear that a lot and tend to agree with the statement. I even used to say it in the opposite "If I get a bad review, that's a signal that I need a new job, because I think I'm doing well and I must have a terrible manager if he'd wait a whole year to tell me otherwise".
And though I'm going to counter it, it's not inaccurate -- an employee shouldn't land in a review expecting that they've been doing wonderfully only to find out that they've been stinking up the place (or vice-versa), but the best manager that I have ever had, Lou, did surprise me at my first review. I wrote about it in another comment on this post so I won't rehash it, but I came to understand this as one of the benefits of performance review time.
Managers are rarely thinking about ways that a top-performing employee can improve, but everyone has something they can improve and a good manager will provide feedback to a staff member if there are areas that they, and others are noticing, that the employee may not be seeing. Because "top performers" don't require the attention that other staff might, a formal review may be the only time that a manager really takes the time to think about them in the context of "improvement". In addition, it's easier to bring up areas of improvement during this time, because it is set aside as one of the purposes of a formal review. In the couple of decades that I've been working, I've had two managers offer me anything in the way of "areas for improvement" -- both times were at reviews -- outside of a review it has never come up.
So yes, it is obscene for a manager to wait until review time to bring up a year's worth of failures, but being surprised by a bit of negative feedback -- provided it's not "Fix this or your getting a pink-slip" kind of feedback, isn't necessarily a management failure. It was quite helpful to me and I count Lou among about 3 people who I feel honored to have known[0] because their impact, caring and advice was life-changing for me.
[0] The other two were my HS programming teacher (who's class I enjoyed in Junior High), the late, great, Mr. Dzwonkiewicz who made me love writing software at a young age, and the woman who cured my social anxiety and made me enjoy public speaking -- the director of To Kill a Mockingbird that I performed in as a young teenager. Her name, though, escapes me. :)
If I get a bad review, that's a signal that I need a new job, because I think I'm doing well and I must have a terrible manager if he'd wait a whole year to tell me otherwise
This exactly. I've had two and half performance improvement plans in my 20 years.
1. My performance and attitude really did suck. I had been at a company too long (9 years), raises were anemic and the bonuses had gotten cut over the years to the point that in year 9 I only made $7K more than I did in year 2. My skillset had atrophied because I was both dealing with personal issues and concentrating on other "working hobbies" where I was making extra money. It was a horrible cycle. The further behind I fell salary wise, the worse my attitude got. I finally left 10 years ago and learned a lot from that mistake.
2. The second time (two jobs later, the company I worked for after the first event went out of business) wasn't because of performance but because I stepped on the wrong coworkers toes - a team lead that wasn't my manager. I learned this time around. I played the political game long enough after the PIP to get a set of skills I wanted (about three months) and left and got another job making 25K more. I did learn some political skills from that experience.
3. I went to another company where I was hired by a manager who was told by his manager to bring people in who could "affect change". The old guard won over, my manager's manager was laid off and my manager was forced out three months later. I got a bad review from my new manager - as did everyone my manager had hired - and we all left within 3 months. This time I left for $13k more and got a job as a team lead.
- I was now working for a company that wasn't a software company, I was brought in to create a modern software department and then we got acquired and the new edict was that they "didn't want to be a Software company". But they did need at least two major projects done that I was responsible for, but they would only let me hire contractors and the red tape to get anything done was ridiculous. After realizing I was going to be made the fall guy and getting a preview of what my review was going to be, I started looking for another job and had one in 10 days making $7K more with less official responsibility but more decision making ability and I'm able to get more done with no red tape (i.e. I'm admin for AWS)
My official PIP at job 2 happened about four years ago. Since then and three jobs later, I'm making 40K more and I am a lot smarter politically now.
They should rename this "48 Laws Of Getting By In Mediocre to Poor Organizations".
Poor managers are threatened by underlings smarter than themselves. Good managers seek people smarter than themselves then try to get the best out of them.
Poor organizations are those where everyone tip toes around afraid to mention reality lest it offend someone. These are organizations on the path of decline. Growing organizations are those that value them who perceive reality and lay out reality so that it can be worked with.
Great organizations and teams don't have time or tolerance for much of the stuff in this doc, they are too busy doing.
Organizations where people don't have enough real work to do are places where these approaches win. And these are places that have generally devolved to survival by some form of legalized theft or lock in rather than innovation and production. Most big Co's. and .govs certainly. It's sad really but I think it's a natural cycle. The new comes up and replaces the old as the old gets corrupted, only to itself become infected with this kind of corruption over time. I don't know that there is a cure once this kind of thing starts and it inevitably seems to.
There are ways to do things and affect change without stepping on toes. By nature, I have very low emotional intelligence. It was a skill I had to learn. I start off building and nurturing relationships, slowly proving my effectiveness, and then slowly start implementing change.
This goes along with the three types of power in an organization - relationship, expert and role power. You'd be amazed by the things you can accomplish in smaller organizations with no role power if you build the right relationships and you prove yourself.
Sadly, not many organizations of this type do exist, you are correct, particularly I'd imagine, in some parts of the globe.
But on occasion, temporarily, teams and organizations like this do exist. I've worked in them. It's how stuff gets built initially before the game players take over.
Because these power structures are _not_ axioms of groups but rather symptoms of productive decay.
Are you for real with this? This is the dumbest books I've seen in a while. Don't outshine the Masters? Wtf kind of cringey corporate hell scenario did this come from...
1. I went into one company knowing I knew more than the “team lead” who was 10 years younger. I wasn’t careful not to step on toes.
2. At work, especially at a large company (the same company as #1). Everyone was jockeying for position and to get known. “Friends” were more than eager to stab you in the back. Also, a lesson I was too naive to know early in my career was that your manager is not your friend.
3. I’m not going to let anyone know that I am jumping on the new high profile, new to me technology to pad my resume. I’m also going to act like I care about my review and that Im happy with the meager raise all the while I am looking for another job.
5. Once you get a bad reputation - it’s impossible to recover from. Even if it’s not your fault. Once that happens, it’s time to jump ship.
I could go on.
Nothing that corporate America does is in the best interest of their employeres. Working is a simple transaction. They pay me for 40 hours a week, I do my best work while working for them but there is no loyalty from the employer so why should we be loyal to them?
Of course I’m not implying being unethical - goofing off, corporate espionage, competing against your employer,etc.
Which “law” do you disagree with? I’ve already said that I think 7 is unethical.
This book might seem dumb at age 20 until you get blindsided by the rules at age 40.
#1 is fantastic advice. If you make your master insecure you are finished at that location. You either have to quit or move up/elsewhere in the organization.
If you are going to shine then you have to shine in ways that are not in direct competition to your immediate masters.
Even a seemingly great workplace can turn toxic very quickly
Don't ever complain. Don't complain about coworkers, the quality of work they do, their attitudes. That guy/gal who complains to you about everyone you work with is complaining about you to everyone else. When you do complain about others, people assume you're complaining about them, too. The only way to be a "safe person" is to avoid this reputation. Don't complain about the customers you work with. That attitude will unconsciously cause you to do poorer quality work and will make you dread doing the work that you have to do. Don't complain about the company. Do this frequently enough and the rare occasion where there is a reason that truly warrants complaining and you'll be listened to[0]. You won't be directly recognized for not complaining, but people naturally prefer to work with non-negative people.
Genuinely thank and compliment people when they do good things. The key is "genuinely"; this means making sure that your thanks/compliment isn't taken as flattery, which can wreck a reputation quickly. Make it a point to find a way to thank people in a way that helps them out, too. Pointing out how someone did great work at the end of a meeting while the boss is packing up their laptop/notes is better than a simple e-mail. The same can be said about complimenting someone in front of a coworker that they have difficulty with. I generally deliver all praise verbally, as well -- this is mostly because I can only put myself in my own shoes on this one - a verbal, genuine, "thank you" feels better than a written note.
Beware of advice about improving your political game, in general. Everyone can see through a "corporate politician's bullsh!t" (except for the person they're applying it to ... but they'll notice it once it's too late). Those sorts of political games are designed to control other's behavior. The laws of nature cause us to resist those who seek to control us. You can only slightly, imperfectly, manipulate others. Stop trying and tackle your own behavior instead. The real benefit to these two rules is that it makes you happier which makes you better at your job.
And the final bit of advice is if you've done or are doing those two things and are still surrounded by politics/unhappy, it's time to leave. In our industry, there's a better job elsewhere. It's not worth sticking around in a dysfunctional environment and it does nobody any favors. Your employer is paying you to do a job. If you're not happy, you're not giving her/him the return they deserve for that payment -- they'd be better off finding someone who thrives in that environment and you'd be better of finding one that you thrive in. And if the environment is simply toxic, sticking around and trying to fix it isn't going to work and will, instead, re-affirm that the toxicity is a good thing. Leaving is the strongest signal you can send to an employer that things are not good. I've watched an organization change due to the "pot boiling over effect" where a few key folks left, causing a large exodus of others who realized, finally, that they couldn't do their own job in addition to the jobs of those who left. It happened over the course of three months and resulted ended when HR stepped in and worked with the managers to sort out large raises, retention bonuses and the firing of some historically toxic managers. Don't fear leaving a job. You managed to get proficient enough at the work you're currently doing to be where you are -- you'll do the same, elsewhere, though if you take the time to find a good job, rather than having that forced on you via a layoff, you're much more likely to end up somewhere that is dramatically better than what you're slogging through at your current employer. Find the environment that you'd want to work in until you retire and take that job[1].
[0] There's a long story behind this that I'm happy to share if someone's interested, but this worked astoundingly well for me on the one occasion that I took a very serious issue with a very strong complaint to a manager. It works like profanity. When the gal/guy who never curses drops a well-placed F-Bomb, whatever that person just said is remembered. You even see this in stand-up comedy -- the "clean comic" who drops a single F-Bomb in the middle of what would have been a pretty weak punch-line ends up getting roaring laughter, unlike the guy who throws them into every sentence.
[1] It also helps to learn how to interview well. Out of about ~20 jobs I've interviewed for in my life, I've gotten an offer at 19.5 of them. The majority of them I have turned down and almost all of those were met with counter-offers, all of which I also turned down. That sounds like gloating and it's not intended -- so I'll clarify that most of these interviews came to me (I wasn't looking at the time and was directly solicited) and all of the jobs I've interviewed for, I was also well qualified for and they were jobs I really wanted (the "one-half" situation was because I told the interviewer that I was no longer interested in the position at the end of the interview, so I really have no idea if I would have been given an offer, but I suspect not). My childhood involved a lot of community theater (and two paid gigs) so I am lucky in that all of that practice results in me lacking the typical nerves when public speaking, which isn't all that different from talking to strangers across an interview table. It comes across as "confidence" when in reality it's just a matter of it not being a terribly big deal for me. The best advice I can give on that is for the week or so prior to an interview, practice talking to strangers (and brush up on techniques around that -- there's plenty of advice in that area on the internet)
Also when you gossip to one person about another or let that person gossip around you, you are "committing" to that person and taking sides - something else you shouldn't do.
That gives me an excuse to give another piece of advice....
In the grand scheme of things, there are three things I think developers should look for.
1. Technology - always look for companies that will give you a marketable skillset. It's worth sacrificing some amount of free time, a not so great environment, and money temporarily. The money will come. Leave a company if you're not learning (of course vesting in stock options, etc. may change the decision)
2. Environment - if you can find a better environment (for you) and still can use marketable technology, why stick around? Wrong environment could be long work hours, a far commute, a small vs larger company (depending on preference).
3. Money. Life is too short not to make as much money as you can doing what you enjoy.
This is excellent advice, and I just wanted to add one thing: under "environment", I would also include "people". I want to be working with smart, driven, friendly, respectful people. YMMV on those specific people traits that you value, but to me who I work with is one of the most important things on the list for job satisfaction.
Good people help you learn along the way, and you can pay if back by mentoring other good people. They will also remember you (and you can remember them) down the road when you've moved on to new companies and someone needs a new job.
This - yes. The reason I love my current job and loved my last one was that I was surrounded by people who knew things that I didn't, who came into work excited to work and who were generally just awesome people.
The key here is to not get complacent. You need to carry that same attitude and approach to work that you enjoy so much out of the people you work with. Luckily, for me, I worked in a very low moral environment for quite a while and outside of my closest friend and coworker, and less than about 7 other people, we had to be the uplifting folks. When I started working at the job that followed the one I stayed at way too long, and people were excited to work on projects, didn't complain before meetings started, and generally didn't have a negative thing to say about the company, the customers or their coworkers, I was in shock for a bit. I didn't believe a place like this actually existed. I'm now moved on from that place at another place with the exact same kind of people. It's amazing how different things are when you are surrounded by people like that versus when you're surrounded by people who are demoralized full-time. I'm a pretty strong optimist and don't require much in the way of external motivation -- (4 kids, single-income family -- a paycheck is the only motivation I need), but it sure is easier to stay motivated when everyone around you is having fun, too.
Definitely. At the job where I was the "architect", I felt lost. I could only learn technical things from reading. I was hired to be the "smartest person in the room" but that meant I couldn't learn. But I did learn a lot more about leadership, being responsible for a project budget, interviewing, hiring, technical decision from a strategic viewpoint etc.
Excellent points and thanks for your two posts; they were both enjoyable reads. I'd like to add a little bit on each, as well.
1. Technology - Also make sure the place you're applying to is willing to give you the tools you require to do your job well. A company that's willing to pay your (very likely) high salary, but then won't drop $2,000 - $1,000/yr on software tools/hardware that make you more efficient is probably an indication that things aren't great over there.
2. Environment - Your job is not your family. Despite the new-speak, you're not on a team with a bunch of team-mates. You are bought and paid for and the person who paid for you expects to get a return for their purchase. If the environment is bad, leaving is the right thing to do[0] for both yourself and your employer. If you stay in a bad environment, you're miserable and you can't provide your best work where you're not happy. Your employer is better off having someone else do your job and you're better off finding some other place to offer your work. And if it's not just a "bad fit", but is actually a "truly awful environment", sticking around simply re-enforces your employer's mindset that everything's fine.
3. Money - I have a feeling you may take some heat for that statement but I completely agree. You'll hear plenty of people complain about other people having too much money but you'll (almost) never hear people complain about having too much money, themselves -- even at, what today, you might consider "absurd salaries". This advice applies somewhat uniquely to our industry where there almost certainly is an opening out there at a company that both pays well and is the specific work that you love to do[1]. I kick myself for turning down four different job offers over the years and chose, instead, to work too long at my first, serious, job. I let "fear of the unknown" convince me that there's too high of a probability that I'd like my next job less than my current job (and I convinced myself that this actually mattered).
[0] Though I would suggest, first, having a direct conversation about things that aren't working for you. It's not easy to do but I've found it to have positive results. And if it doesn't, it'll help reaffirm that you need to do the right thing and get out.
[1] My ex-wife once looked over at the code on my screen while we were sitting in bed watching television and said "Is this what you do all day?". I smiled, excited that she was taking an interest in the work that I was doing and wanted to know more about it. I said "Sure is" (beaming a little too much). She paused, and in a serious voice that, to this day, I will never forget said "I'd kill myself if I had to do what you do."
I specified a bad environment - for you. Some people like large companies others like small companies where they can wear a lot of hats. Some people like structure others don’t. Some people like the “bro culture”. Sometimes it just the commute...
Completely agree - I hope my phrasing didn't come off as otherwise in my prior reply. :)
The commute situation used to be pretty awful for me -- my first "real job" involved a 62 mile round-trip (for 7 of the 17 or so years I was there). My current job is "in the office" and involves a 35-40 minute one-way commute and it's really my only environment-related complaint. It was easily solved, though, through two things. (1) My company is time flexible and having worked for a team in the UK over here in the Eastern Time Zone, I got used to waking up at 5:00 AM, so I get into work at around 6:30 AM, avoiding rush hour on both sides and (2) easily the the best fix -- I got my CY endorsement[0] and purchased a motorcycle ... in the spring/summer/fall months, my commute is all kinds of fun[1].
[0] It seriously cost all of $25 and involved a weekend with most of it spent riding a motorcycle. I can't think of a cheaper form of entertainment and I've convinced two other people to drop the $25 bucks -- both are licensed, now, and neither own a bike.
[1] This is my 6th year as a motorcycle owner/rider and every year, including this one, the day that I know is going to be my last day riding for the year is actually depressing. And I wait in anticipation for the day that I'll be able to ride into work every day, again. There are mornings that I wake up excited just to hit the road. So, at least for me, it hasn't gotten old yet and I don't see it getting old anytime soon.
I like to distinguish between a toxic environment - one where you are being constantly harrassed, bullied, demean, forced into doing things that are illegal or unethical, etc. and a "bad fit for you".
I would never suggest someone suck it up and deal with sexual harassment for the chance to learn new technology and build thier resume. But if you have to deal with a long commute, long hours, or the red tape of a large company for a little while to build your resume, that's a different story.
Having the one large well known company I worked at for 2.5 years opened a lot of doors for me. But now that I have choices, I wouldn't go near a large company unless I was desperate.
My experience is just the opposite in my 22 years. I've only twice received a raise of more than 3% - once in 1997 when I was "promoted" to a junior programmer from a computer operator ($11K) and once again in 2000 at a different job with a ($10K) market adjustment.
I learned my lesson after 7 years of COLAs (I was a slow learner /s). Jump ship at the first sign that the company won't pay you your market rate.
Now 10 years, 5 jobs, and $70K later, I don't expect major jumps anymore. I'm within $15,000 of the most that any company in my local market is willing to pay an individual contributor. I have no desire for management and I live a comfortable life.
I usually say this to my direct reports- "we have to do the review, but I promise there won't be any surprises!" And then I focus the review on how I value their contribution, how they positively influence their coworkers and clients. And if we are in-progress on improving something, we set those things as written goals for the next year.
This doesn't really work in organisationa with a high manager turnover. Where I work, I've had 12 managers in 15 years, so each manager doesn't really know me, or the 'goodwill' I have within our organisation and with our customers. They really are a waste of time at some orgs.
Performance reviews sound so cringey, I don't know how people can subject themselves to such practices. I guess it's one of those legacy practices to allow people to move up the ladder.
Coaching is not a purpose of a performance review. The coaching and communication should be an ongoing process that happens before the review. Problems should be brought up early enough that you have a chance to change or improve before it gets to the point of being written in a review. If this doesn't happen, it's a sign that the manager is either terrible at communication, not even trying to coach and improve their employees, or even sabotaging you on purpose.
Instead, the purpose of performance reviews is documentation. It can be for good or for bad, depending on the person's performance. It makes info available to others and preserves it in case you transfer departments, your manager leaves, etc. Like any other documentation, it creates overhead, but you have to weigh that against the value it provides, and IMHO that's what should determine whether you do it (and how often).