The issue is that they evaluate people relatively to each other, but only within their own team, though they try a little bit to do it at the director level.
If you're the worst of the best, you might be paid the same as the best of the worst in a different team, even if you're way better then them.
I think a lot of people would prefer an absolute measure, like did you deliver what people expected you to do deliver for the role and position you were hired for, aka, are you doing the job they need.
If it was an absolute scale, then ideally someone that's the worst of the best would still be paid more than someone that's the best of the worst.
But, like with interviews, I think it's just a hard problem. Evaluating performance is not something anyone has found a good way to do it. Wanting to do it seems reasonable, but being accurate at it isn't easily achievable, there'll always be injustice due to the innacuracies of the process.
If you're the worst of the best, you might be paid the same as the best of the worst in a different team, even if you're way better then them.
I think a lot of people would prefer an absolute measure, like did you deliver what people expected you to do deliver for the role and position you were hired for, aka, are you doing the job they need.
If it was an absolute scale, then ideally someone that's the worst of the best would still be paid more than someone that's the best of the worst.
But, like with interviews, I think it's just a hard problem. Evaluating performance is not something anyone has found a good way to do it. Wanting to do it seems reasonable, but being accurate at it isn't easily achievable, there'll always be injustice due to the innacuracies of the process.