|
|
|
|
|
|
by buran77
1432 days ago
|
|
|
The problem with zero sum game performance reviews is that they're not about improving performance but about fitting everyone in the same boxes. And this usually results in ridiculous outcomes, some of which are particularly bad depending on how that "box fitting" is implemented. > trade a HV3 down to an HV2 in order to keep an unpopular but otherwise fine performing engineer from getting an LE. Like this where the company's goal is never to improve "unpopular but otherwise fine performing engineer" but rather to keep the boundary of the boxes. And this despite mounting evidence against such systems, and the known abuse with methods like hire to fire. To me this is always a sign of rotten leadership. |
|
|
I and some friends worked for Capital One, which does stack ranking (but not the intense PIP that Amazon does).
Overall the stack ranking isn't a huge issue, but you get screwed because those boxes are subjective, which I always felt was the big issue with any system like this.
I worked easily 9-6 most days and got an average rating, while I buddy of mine in a different org would work maybe 4 hours a day and get the same rating. My org had intense work and my manager saw that as the norm.
Again not terrible, but I would be incredibly mad if say this same system conspired to putting me on PIP. Working more and longer hours but not meeting the definition of average for your specific manager and team.