| Simplified (not an essay) set of reasons: 1. Herding cats is hard, i.e. how to point them in the same direction (as the company strategy - a.k.a how do you communicate "this is what the company thinks is important") 2. How do you spot bad performers (those who are busy but never seem to ship / deliver) 3. How do you provide timely opportunities to learn / grow / improve Is it the best system? Not by a significant margin, but all better systems have trade-offs or work great in theory but not in practise. Is it misused / abused by some companies? Absolutely, this is true of all such systems and it's up to each company to seriously ask itself why it wants to do this and whether it does apply to everyone they want to apply it to. In many ways it is a "least worst" option, whereby you have a degree of alignment around contributing towards the company strategy, are able to have a regular cadence to ask "did you complete that work when you said?", and a regular cadence for "how can the company help you?" (by lining up work that helps with growth, etc). Is it scientific? Not really... there would have to be a universal scientific application of such processes for them to be comparable and companies will always apply things in a way that fits them. Edit: I've seen this at my last few employers and I believe it is valuable, but really you get out what you put in. For those looking to advance their position, compensation, etc... this is a great opportunity (4 times per year!) to identify what the company thinks is important and to contribute to that work, and fit the narrative of your progression into the company one. No-one forces you to do this work, you can treat it as a paper-pushing exercise if you want but then it's a wasted opportunity for you to use it for your benefit (profit! including work/life balance, etc) |