[spywaregorilla]

This is really difficult to do. Ratings tend to be done mentally by managers by comparing peers. Meaning every group has top and bottom performers. It ignores the fact that the absolute level of performance of each team is likely very different. The bottom performer of a top performing team could be way better than average. Will that be caught, who knows? The inverse is also true. That someone shitty is on a great team and it's hard to observe that.

[jmalicki]

There are likely a lot of downsides to their PSC system, but Meta is way more rigorous than this. They take performance reviews written by the employee themselves, reports, peers, managers, and calibrate them in meetings involving peer managers and several levels of managers above.

It's probably one of the more rigorous systems in the tech industry that at least avoids this kind of bias, though there are certainly ways it can be gamed.