[dom96]

> The result was a lot of config changes making noise in metrics that could be read positively, without implementing the state of the art systems that took a year before you could write a fancy success workplace post about it. That would risk poor performance reviews and the shuffling of reasources away from your team as a result.

Meta has recently switched to a performance review cycle of 1 year (from 6 months). It sounds like one of the reasons this was done was to help make such work more possible.

[saltythrowaway]

I think the actual issue is the underlying culture. Google worked fine with multiple review cycles and you could get a good rating working on something hard that only shipped when it was ready.

However it is an optimistic sign in that leadership must get that part of the problem (long term vision is penalized) and is taking steps to address it. Maybe I judged them too harshly above; I don't know what I would do in their position to turn the ship around.