[rrrrrrrrrrrr2]

Of course, the classic corporate oppression of "hi we're paying you $200,000/yr to write code... could you list out your contributions for the past quarter so we can evaluate your performance?".

I find it hard to believe you have 20 years of experience but don't see the point of performance evaluations. Imo it's part of being a professional to be able to answer the question "what are you working on"

It's very simple. They pay you, you do work. If they stopped paying you, you'd probably stop working.

Why would you expect that if you stop working, they won't stop paying you?

[phailhaus]

> Imo it's part of being a professional to be able to answer the question "what are you working on".

If they need an end-of-year self review to determine that, something has gone horribly wrong. They already know what I'm working on: they're the ones that assigned me to it, and I report on it regularly in standups. So what's the point of the review? If they don't already know what value I'm bringing, that's a red flag.

[rrrrrrrrrrrr2]

Why would you hire someone who refuses to summarize for you, once or twice a year, just at a high level, what they accomplished.

Suppose you hired a plumber who refused out of principle to tell you whether or not they fixed your toilet.

That's what I mean by it's professionalism.

[eppp]

I suppose if I hire someone that I would know why I hired them and I would check the toilet to see if it worked, regardless of what the plumber said.

[rrrrrrrrrrrr2]

At what frequency would you check? Is polling the toilet really more efficient than receiving a "plumbing complete" event from the plumber?

[kqr]

Sure it is. As long as the toilet works when you need it, you (a) don't actually have to check, and (b) the plumber is free to sequence their tasks in an optimal fashion.

The message from the plumber is based on the assumption that the default state of things is that the plumber has not done their job and things don't work. If you feel like that's the default state of things, you should choose a different plumber, not ask for notifications about which things don't work.

[rrrrrrrrrrrr2]

1. Current (default) state: toilet broke.

2. I call plumber.

3. Plumber fix.

4. New state: toilet work.

kqr: "Hi Mr. Plumber, could you let me know when 3-->4 happens. I need to use it once you're done, but I'm busy and don't have time to micromanage or continuously observe your work on the toilet."

(plumber's gaze narrows) "No. Fuck you, kqr. Fuck you, I'm not telling you jack shit. I have rights and dignity as a professional."

kqr: Wow, what a great plumber. I'd hire that person again.

[stcroixx]

Since I gave them the work, I don't need them to summarize what I already know. Waste of time. I'd rather they continue working on their assigned tasks.

[mhss]

See my answer above. You're assuming is easy for management to know exactly what you're doing. This will vary from org to org and how many reports do they have, how complex the work is, how much autonomy everyone has, etc;

Sure, you can take the stance "they should know", but then don't complain when even well-intentioned managers can lose perspective or miss some of your accomplishments when is time to recognize your efforts (promo, raises, etc).

I consider myself a "well intentioned" manager, I care about my team and their work, try to keep up with the details, etc; but there's just too much going on at a large organization and I'm fallible. I may forget, or fail to see the complexity and value of something someone did (even my own accomplishments). There's nothing wrong with advocating for yourself and making your manager aware of your stance. If there's disagreement about how valuable something I did is I'd rather know when having that conversation. I may learn my manager cares more about x/y/z and not something I thought it was valuable but turns out is not important for the org or my manager for some reason I wasn't aware of.

[mrrsm]

> Why would you expect that if you stop working they won't stop paying you? They aren't going to rely on someones self-written review to notice you haven't been working.

Chances are your manager could fill this out for you most of the time as they should have a good grasp of what you have been doing in your day to day.

Most of the time I can generate a list of what I have worked on via commit messages or ticket names to get a high level idea of what I have been doing. I still feel like my manager may have a better idea of what impact my changes have had then I do in some cases.

[maximinus_thrax]

> Imo it's part of being a professional to be able to answer the question "what are you working on"

I do that almost every day during standups and every week during 1:1s. I have no problem with it. What I do have a problem with, is when I'm forced into making judgements about my work. That's for someone who gets paid more than me to do in the corporate context. My opinion about my work and all the other self-reflection stays with me. I don't want to bootstrap their work by coming up with all sorts of ways of rewriting history to match some artificial and arbitrary expectations which are anyway outside of my control. And so is the performance review itself, in the end. Some places even allow you to review what your boss said about your performance review and even 'contest' it. You know what happened when you did that? Literally nothing, except for a checked box saying that the employee disagrees. It's all pretend.

[walls]

What are these managers getting 400k/year to do if they can't list the accomplishments of their subordinates?

[TeMPOraL]

But they can, and in some contexts they do - it's just that they may see them differently than you see them. Perf review is a chance to share your own perspective.

[maximinus_thrax]

What happens if the perspectives don't match?

[rrrrrrrrrrrr2]

Well, they can list the accomplishments just fine for their other subordinates, who submitted a non-blank performance review.

Just not you.

[icedchai]

Going to meetings?