Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Thanks for this comment. Can you please share more details on how the process is structured at your company?



Sure -- once per year:

- Write up self review. 1-2 pages to highlight what you worked on and accomplished, who you helped, why it matters. Score yourself on various dimensions of how good of a job you are doing (working with others, getting stuff done, etc.)

- Nominate 3-4 people to give you peer reviews. Best to pick people who can speak to your work, ideally with some folks from outside your particular group, and ideally with some seniority.

- Managers decide who to ask for peer review about whom. You'll get asked by various managers for feedback about their reports. Write and submit this feedback -- could be as short as a paragraph, more typically 2 or 3 paragraphs: what did you work on with them, what did they do achieve, what could have gone better? I've probably given feedback for 5-10 people on average.

- Manager synthesizes all of this into a report, score you on the same dimensions.

- Manager meets with you, gives you their report, goes over it with you. There's a lot to this meeting. It's a review of how they see your work, a comparison of your self-scores and their scores to get on the same page, a discussion of noteworthy feedback from others (positive and negative), a chance to defend yourself against any negative feedback, and a discussion of ideas for addressing any concerns. Typically there is also a lot of goal-setting for the upcoming year, and more generally a discussion of how things are going, how happy you are, and so on.

- Formally acknowledge that you discussed the report with your manager (checkbox in some system). This also gives you a chance to formally comment on the report, I imagine in case of some dispute.

- Followup meeting, some time later, deals with compensation adjustments, promotions, etc. This is kept separate from the review itself.

Effort level has been perhaps 2-3 days per year for writing up all the reviews. I'm sure it's worse for managers.


I had the displeasure of working for a company that had a similar review system, but it was quarterly rather than annual. Total nightmare.


Thanks for this detail. Was there any goal setting at the start of the review period so you understood what you were going to be evaluated against?


The dimensions that you are scored on are fixed ahead of time and haven't changed in years.

The individual goals are set in this year's review, evaluated in next year's review.


Not the OP but sounds like Google’s “Perf” process. You can take a search through HN and get a couple of accounts. Generally; you write how well you did, then you get a couple of peers to confirm it and give you feedback. Then your manager works with a bunch of other managers to “calibrate” to make sure their view of the world is not skewed (think you did poorly but you actually did well and vice-versa). Then you receive a rating based on that calibration.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: