[vanjajaja1]

the problem is that its a zero-sum game, you can only compare performance across a cohort. if the majority of your cohort cheats, and cheating hurts performance, then they'll all be low performance and you'll still end up promoting some of them (because thats just what happens)

[halbritt]

> you can only compare performance across a cohort

I can't accept this premise. Optimally the persons responsible for managing engineering staff should be able to independently determine whether the work being produced was of sufficient quality or not regardless of the cohort.

At issue here, I believe is that this is a difficult thing to cultivate consistently in many corporations and so there's some desire to create standardized metrics for performance against which a cohort is measured. Regardless, most large tech firms have some kind of well defined rubric against which the engineers are measured.

[vanjajaja1]

what do you mean sufficient? I think the premise is that all these people can get the job done, but some of them can do it better and faster. In the big tech scene its not about being sufficient, its about being the fastest (faster than the competitor)