In my company, years ago, performance rating was done by your line manager just talking to your project manager(s) to find out how you were getting on, and the line manager would assign you a pay rise (or not) accordingly. This was a perfectly sane and workable system.
Then the place got engulfed by this insane fad for "performance reviews", which is idiotic on its face for a number of reasons:
1. You request review feedback from peers - this is unworkable because if you work with someone who is useless, and you say so in their review, your working relationship with them becomes untenable;
2. The process also requires "self review", which is nothing but a mechanism for bullshitters to big themselves up. It is also time-consuming, and good people are generally too busy to dedicate much time to it; the bullshitters and timewasters otoh will happily dedicate days to polishing their lies and exaggerations;
3. In general the process massively favours those who play the performance review system, i.e. the politicians;
4. You are required to set "career objectives", which is almost entirely pointless since as a tech person you are largely constrained by what jobs need your skills at the particular moment you become available; there is little tolerance for people sitting around idle waiting for the perfect role that meets their desired objective.
> In my company, years ago, performance rating was done by your line manager just talking to your project manager(s) to find out how you were getting on, and the line manager would assign you a pay rise (or not) accordingly. This was a perfectly sane and workable system.
That sounds very much like "hiring people based on having a reasonable conversation about their experience.” It is a perfectly sane and reasonable system, provided everyone involved is acting in good faith, has a great deal of ability to evaluate people based on their actual contribution to the success of the company, and nobody has any overt or internalized biases.
Without taking anything away from your company, I’m sure you will appreciate that in many companies, this business of “assigning you a bonus based on conversations with the project manager(s)” gets twisted into a horrible political game where people build fiefdoms based on tit-for-tat agreements, and where all sorts of biases come into play, e.g. the men are all “take-charge go-getters,” while the women are all “confrontational and bossy.”
I’m saying nothing about performance evaluations being better, just that results like you have experienced with your company are remarkably difficult to reproduce and sustain.
My bet is that if conversation works in your company, performance evaluations would also work. Maybe with more annoying paperwork involved, but it would still work.
Both systems have their downsides. The simpler system generally has fewer, and that makes it preferable in many ways. But there could also be a different simple system that has fewer downsides.
It's important to first think of the active system at play and its influences on people, and second, try to improve it without disconnecting the model from reality.
This is a hard problem, and is one of the reasons leaders and managers need systems thinking skills above all.
> Both systems have their downsides. The simpler system generally has fewer, and that makes it preferable in many ways.
[Citation needed]
Also, I find the version with paperwork better, because that creates a documentation trail. If someone is routinely favoring certain people or groups, documentation makes that easy to expose. As opposed to the "word of mouth" system where it's likely impossible.
Also, looking for proof in a complex system will often lead you down the path of least resistance (the path for which it's easiest to find supporting proof; not necessarily the best path). So asking for proof is just evidence of a lack of systems thinking at play.
Ability to understand your specific system and guide it is the far more important factor.
You ask for a citation for an opinion (see: "preferable") then proceed to share your own semi-claim without a citation.
Though probably not intended, saying "Citation Needed" can be off-putting and wastes time in discussions where if you spent a few extra seconds, you could ask a more thoughtful question. For example, your abridged quote has numerous elements and the target of your critique is unclear.
I agree with your comments in a general way, but argue that in many organization, the system with the fewest overt rules and processes devolves into a complex set of covert rules and processes.
It appears simpler at first glance, because the complexity is deliberately hidden. The oft-quoted example concerns “structureless” organizations:
This is not universal, but something to guard against: That the “simpler” system is not, in fact, a structureless environment where manipulative individuals will create an invisible complex system.
We possibly work for the same company, as our system - flaws and all - are identical to what you describe. As someone who has to carry out both sides of the process (reviewing staff/managing them through the process, and getting my own review done), I'm most certainly not a fan! Staff seem to fall into two categories - those who see the whole thing as political nonsense they don't have the time for, or have become so turned off by how bad it is that they just don't care about the outcome any more.
The Accenture news was raised on an internal discussion about the review process almost immediately, as some people are that keen to get rid of the current way of doing things ASAP. Sadly, I can't see anything coming from it, as the word is that Upper Management values the generated metrics too much to change anything.
well, don't blame them. above certain position (which is usually pretty low), politics overcome skills in terms of progress in career. so what do you expect from bullshitters who bullshitted their way up there into positions of power, that they would cut off their own source of (current and future) success? :)
I work in same type of company, and it's pretty obvious how this and similar corporate cr*p clearly doesn't bring the best out of people, sometimes in contrary. If I would be owner/shareholder of any company, ever, first thing I would be concerned how incentives/bonuses for that extra mile/good work are being given. The higher the management, the more bonuses would be tied to long term progress (i know it's easier written than done, but i consider it at least partly responsible for financial turmoil of recent years too).
Rather than politics, I think the primary motivation is predictability and control over costs and the ability to link costs to the company's financial performance. A ranking process that buckets employees into performance categories allows you to determine the company-wide increase in salaries and the bonus pool first and work backwards to arrive at each employee's raise/bonus. And since bonuses are usually timed with the end of the fiscal year, that increase (or lack thereof) can be based entirely on the numbers they deliver to investors.
Also, by forcing a relative appraisal of each employees performance, you force managers to view employees with a more critical eye. If I were to simply have to answer, "did X do a good job on this project?", my answer would almost always be yes, absent any incentive to say no. But there are members of my team who deliver significantly better than others, so the calibration process forces me to find a way to put them above the team members who perform at a lower level. Getting rid of performance reviews would, from what I've seen, create a culture of "don't screw up" rather than one of taking risks and trying to do as well as possible.
As a manager who both received an annual performance review and delivered 10 of them in the past week (our FY15 ends 7/31), I hate the process more than most people. But I think this discussion is ignoring the advantages just because we all hate the process. We run the risk of creating a whole new process that we hate just as much as the old process. Because it all boils down to finding an impartial way to evaluate performance and, unless you can crack that nut, your process isn't going to work. Top performers will move on and you'll be left with only under-performers. And that's because humans naturally evaluate their circumstances relatively rather than absolutely, once you get beyond the basics (i.e. can I pay rent and bills). Someone making $100k/yr is going to feel underpaid if someone they feel they're better than makes more. Just because the current system for ranking is flawed doesn't mean that there doesn't mean that ranking isn't necessary.
I'd say that having performance reviews enforces:
1) culture of "don't screw up". (Yes, opposite to your thought) What risks would anyone will want to take if it means preparing yourself to be scapegoat if something will not work out perfectly?
2) enormous amount of politics, lies, and self-promoting by shameless liars and back-stabbers. How can you tell whether someone delivered significantly better then others? In most cases it's mutual BS feeding/consuming between manager and certain type of employees.
> How can you tell whether someone delivered significantly better then others?
I can tell because I don't suck at my job. I look at pull requests. I look at ticket completion. I'm with my engineers during planning to know whether people are padding their estimates. I make a note whenever someone steps up in some way (handling emergencies off hours, helping another developer get their work done, etc.) If a manager doesn't understand the work of the people s/he's managing, that manager is unqualified to do the job.
As to your 1), it all depends on what type of culture a company has and how much employees are punished for screwing up. At a company like Facebook, you're expected to "move fast and break things." I'd be very surprised if people were inhibited there. If you're at a bank where screw ups mean someone gets fired, you're probably right.
The review/ranking process is not going to influence if top performers stay one way or another.
I'm strongly skeptical that the review process that I've seen various company is any good at helping to make the real connections between employee performance and company bottom lines. In the end, the ranking process of doling out salaries is fooling itself by cloaking the process in numbers.
One of those software management coaches once complained about this structure, "instead of celebrating people for their strengths, we punish them for their weaknesses". Most companies have enough people that as long as I'm really good at three things and we all know which three things I'm terrible at, everybody gets what they need and the company flourishes.
Instead we all have to be identical, and our "development plan" is all about getting better at doing things that normally I'd let somebody else take care of, because they will always be better at it than I am. No big raise for me, even though I've saved you two headcount and reduced regressions by a factor of four by improving the dev process and toolchain.
In this case, I'd say number 2 is your fault. Your company has clearly told you that they care more about what you write in your self review than in actually getting stuff done. Those people have realized this, and are simply giving the company what they asked for.
It's sad and sort of amusing that most people here seem to be misunderstanding the point of this entirely. Unfortunately, this is likely prophetic of the way people within Accenture will misunderstand this too.
Most of the grievances in comments here at this point are not so much about the feedback system as about the pay system. There is no mention in the article of "pay", "compensation", "salary", "reward", or any other word talking about the pay system. There is no indication that this is what's being operated on. What is happening is that they're replacing a yearly feedback process with a continuous feedback process.
That's very worthwhile, but it won't solve issues with the pay system, or with politics, or with people "playing the game", etc. It just means that people will have more regular feedback. That's good in and of itself, but it won't suddenly transform the company or turn it upside down.
Now, at the same time, reading this CEO's statement, and comparing it with the sort of stuff that was being said when I was working there, this guy seems positively enlightened. I hope this is just one piece in a pattern of many different things he'll be changing at Accenture. If it is, then there could be large scale change in Accenture.
As it is, this is just one encouraging bit of change around the feedback process. NOT a change of the pay model. NOT something that will get rid of politics in the pay model. NOT something that will majorly change the culture. JUST something that will encourage everyone to operate in the way that good managers (of which there are many at Accenture) already operated.
To be fair the pay was actually pretty good. I think the problem with a system like this is that it forces employees into one of two strategies with no middle ground.
1. Be super competitive and always aim to be ranked at the very top, to the detriment of working on your technical skills that don't help here.
2. See that the only winning move is not to play and ignore the ranking, focusing instead on gaining experience and forming a long term exit plan.
I saw lots of examples of both tribes but not much in between.
i think this hits the nail on the head. The real problem is the terrible managers, where the only time they even considered their direct reports performance, was during the annual performance reviews. Now, since there is no formal mechanism or check in place, they won't even do that. Are they better or worse off? I don't know.
The regular "laddering" process was a massive pain and a huge burden on staff that took away from doing real work. It also had the effect of forcing the most talented people out of the company as they tended to focus on actually building the things the clients wanted rather than playing the ranking game. Ranking was strongly correlated to time spent in the office rather than achievements or output.
I don't think this will change the mindset internally although it's a positive move. There is a big company culture of not trying to excel at anything for fear of making a mistake and looking bad. The firm is also full of jokers who haven't got a clue about software and don't even think it's a technology company. Lots of politics too.
"""The firm is also full of jokers who haven't got a clue about software and don't even think it's a technology company."""
From (limited) experience this is true for many technology consultants. Unfortunately it's also somewhat common practice for business software projects that involve a small/medium sized software company and a gigantic client that the client requires the involvement of Accure et al. to feel more secure.
Sadly it is not uncommon to have the consulting "software experts" do nonsensical tasks just so that they are not touching important stuff.
These days, I am very skeptical about getting involved in any software projects that involve big name consultants.
A lot of the big names are smaller competitors who were bought out. If I wanted to buy into a big name like that, I would make sure their founding headquarters were based nearby and that they are run by the same soft of people that started it.
It sounds like you have experience of the firm. I'm interested in tech consulting and was planning on applying after graduation. Would you advise against this? Are there any firms in a similar line of work that you would recommend? (This question is open anyone on HN who wants to chip in).
Imagine you're running a consulting company. A client approaches you with a project.
Like all software projects, there are big error bars on all time estimates; it could take X hours or 0.5X hours or 2X hours, even without scope changes. With scope changes, all bets are off. The deal you strike with the client makes this clear - you estimate X hours, but you can bill them anything from 0.5X hours to 2X hours.
If you assign one competent engineer to the project, they'll bill X hours.
If you assign two competent engineers to the project, they'll each bill 0.55X hours for a total of 1.1X hours billed (the extra 0.1X is due to communications overhead)
But if you assign one competent engineer and one incompetent engineer, the competent engineer will bill 0.8X hours completing the project and the incompetent engineer will bill 0.8X hours - for a total of 1.6X hours billed.
In other words, if a project has one competent engineer, adding a competent engineer adds 0.1X to revenue but adding an incompetent engineer adds 0.6X to revenue.
How do you suppose these incentives work out in practice?
One other little tactic used my on-site folks is to make everyone else look crappy (employees and contractors from other companies) except the employees who directly affect the contract. That way the client gets rid of these undesirables and brings in more of your people thus increasing your revenue.
Accenture played this game quite well, made for some very unfun working environments for friends of mine. I was lucky enough to work at places that didn't have the big contracting companies when I was doing consulting.
Yes, forgot to cite my source. Been there, done that, got the suits.
It depends on what track you choose and what projects you get on, amongst many other things. There are plenty of talented people (at least to begin with) but they tend to get masked by people who would be better suited as contestants on the apprentice.
If you go into consulting and you're even vaguely technical (can write simple software) then you will be very frustrated and will probably end up teaching the start group courses. If you're happy to have your non-technical manager take credit for your work then go for it. Solutions is more technical but doesn't pay as well.
If you're the sort of person that reads HN (which you obviously are) then it is unlikely to be a good cultural fit for you.
Swombat also has experience but I don't know if he'll chip in.
Hey, I read Hacker News, and I work at a Bank. You used to work at that firm. Why wouldn't I want to read Hacker News just because I have an MBA and know how to tie a tie (and can squeeze the seven P's of Marketing and Porter's Five Forces into an interleaved bullet pointed presentation on just about anything?)
My first job out of school was in tech consulting, and I got a lot out of it. In the 5 years I was there I got to see probably 5-8 different companies of all types and sizes. It gave me a better understanding of the different kinds of problems and (sometimes) the positives at various types of companies. Plus, lots of variety in terms of the projects and technology I worked with. It would have been hard to get the same breadth of experience at a single job, and I don't think I've ever had it in me to change companies every 6-12 months.
But does this actually mean faster promotion cycles?
I worked for Accenture for a bit and decided to quit when they would use technicalities to deny promotions. As a matter of fact, I was denied promotions for three cycles because I joined 2-3 weeks too late. Basically, because I joined the firm 2-3 weeks after the big yearly review, I wasn't eligible for any promotion for two years whereas if I had been given a start date a month earlier I would have been eligible after a year.
I left and more than doubled my salary, work on newer technologies, largely in charge of my own schedule, can work anywhere in the world, and received promotions faster.
“Employees that do best in performance management systems tend to be the employees that are the most narcissistic and self-promoting,” said Brian Kropp, the HR practice leader for CEB. “Those aren’t necessarily the employees you need to be the best organization going forward.”
Maybe I'm fooling myself and I really am narcissistic. But my feeling is that it's not narcissism but simply a rational adaptation to the conditions. What I do when you put a self-review form in front of me, is similar to what I do as a musician when you put some sheet music in front of me: Play the notes and try to make the audience happy.
It /should/ be an opportunity to reflect on your weaknesses, I don't think I've ever met a manager who would do anything but laugh at all-tens in a self-review, but I have been able to keep annual review conversations short and comfortable by expressing self-knowledge and making it clear that we both wanted me to improve in the same ways, but also that there are simply some areas I'm not as strong in as others, and I should be deployed as such.
In my view, the process has lost that purpose since it became a zero-sum game for determining raises, bonuses, and even layoffs. At the same time it's also a game for my boss, who's competing with other bosses at his level for his raise and bonus budget. He knows that I've been a supervisor, and that I understand the game as well as he does.
My boss accepts my all-positive self review, and then reminds me that I have to add two negatives, because it's mandatory. I choose negatives that are completely bland.
What it means is that dealing with my weaknesses is not part of the annual review process. But I'm free to engage in as much introspection as I want, and my boss is welcome to chat with me about it at any time. On the other hand, I might choose to keep some of my weaknesses to myself. Working through my own shortcomings is something that might be a rational choice. And there's such a thing as too much information. ;-)
What does a musician do when after his show, some record company exec puts a self-review form in front of him? To fuck off with the worthless piece of paper, if he has any self respect.
Read the fine print. They are not getting rid of performance reviews and rankings. They are removing the useless yearly conversation that formally informed the employee of what they already knew.
I worked for Accenture, as well as its first incarnation Andersen Consulting, and in my experience the reviews that really mattered were the so-called role reviews. Roles are jobs at a client. Every role reports to a more senior Accenture employee who assigns scores as a judgment on performance. The annual review, held with one's career counselor, is a chat largely about the scores assigned to one from roles in the current year. The scores from roles add up to a number and that number is essentially the annual review.
In this policy change, Accenture is simply removing a useless impotent non-position. It does nothing to curb the recency effect, for example, pernicious in the role review. That said, Accenture's process is more enlightened than most approaches to the formal review.
Annual reviews are too coarse of a tool to be effective. They cause stress for employees because a year's worth of feedback gets dumped on them at once. It is difficult to condense a year's worth of issues, praises, concerns, props, and feedback into a one-hour meeting. Reducing people to a set of numbers often leads to negative feelings.
Good relationships, be it professional or otherwise, are based on effective communication. An ongoing conversation between managers and their reports is the best way for a manager to know what is going on and be connected, and for an employee to feel heard and in-touch. This conversation must be continuous and embrace all aspects of a employee-manager relationship.
I've been working for over three years on a service called 15Five which is a tool for such communication. It is neat to hear how people use this service in their organizations as an alternative to annual reviews.
I feel there is a growing shift away from quantified annual reviews and into more conversational feedback loops.
Well there is a school of thought that says the only "new" feedback you should be getting in your annual review is very recent feedback. Negative, constructive of course, should be being brought up earlier in the year in order to give you a chance to correct that behaviour - after all that is the point of developing an individual. Traditionally this is what the 6 month, mid period, halfway etc review is for - giving feedback and reviewing the objectives your annual appraisal will be based on.
Being criticised by a colleague for something they've failed to bring up until now is a sign it clearly isn't that serious. Having a manager sit on negative feedback until the review is a sign of a very bad manager. In both cases I'd be pushing strongly back.
Well said. What needs to be considered also is that a manager may have different types of negative feedback. He may have major issues, which would be strange to hold on to until the annual review. However, there may also be a bunch of smaller pieces of criticism, which will fall under a particular threshold and will be held back, either entirely, or until an opportunity for a review arises. That opportunity may be a long ways away.
The trick is having constant feedback. Weekly, bi-weekly, or even monthly review-like events allow both the employer and employee to share wins and discuss areas of friction. Having lots of such mini-reviews allows for quicker resolution and prevents things from boiling up.
Fantastic managers do this intuitively and do not need instruction or tools for it.
i think the largest obstacle is that performance bonuses are still paid ANNUALLY. If I have an amazing Q1/Q2/Q3, but a terrible Q4, guess what happens when payouts come around? Manager remembers the last thing you did.
if the industry really wants to transform performance, pay them out monthly or quarterly
The real answer is, they dont want to. In fact, I suspect you will see an industry trend to disband performance bonuses for all non C-level employees over the next 5-10 years.
> In fact, I suspect you will see an industry trend to disband performance bonuses for all non C-level employees over the next 5-10 years.
I doubt that. Bonuses are basically a portion of an employee's salary that can be rescinded at the company's whim. Employees won't simply start working for less, so eliminating bonuses would remove the company's ability to give more during the fat years and less during the lean years.
Terming them bonuses is actually wrongheaded, considering employees expect to get that money. Bonuses are on the offer letter...it's not like people show up their first day after accepting the offer and are told, "by the way, you'll get $X/yr bonus." They're actually concessions made by the employee during the negotiation phase to give the company flexibility over a portion of their salary. And I doubt we'll see companies want to give up that flexibility.
As someone who has to give the news about the review outcome, I can confirm this from my own experience as well. Pretty much only those who come out of it as "top-tier" get any benefit, and no amount of "spin" will cushion the news of anything lesser. Of course, this isn't helped by there being an enforced normalisation curve on the ratings…
Even excellent scores can be demotivating. When one is blocked from internal career movement due to being 'too valuable to the team', and when the only reward on offer is a nice pat-on-the-back and a thumbs-up; One starts to wonder how much less work it would take to drop down to just 'good'.
I generally got excellents on performance reviews for my brief, entry level stint at Big Corp.
I still felt demotivated by the whole process, because it was a forced ranking of the system that wasted the whole teams time to say what everyone had already known: some of us did more work, some of us did less, and some of us were on a faster upward trajectory than others.
It turns out that it doesn't actually motivate any of your employees to throw social hierarchies in their face -- it only causes tension and undue focus on micro-social hierarchies (those heiarchies within a social class, eg, the hierarchy of entry level tech workers).
Actually I find when I've gotten an excellent review it's encouraged a little complacency immediately after. Good feedback after a single assignment doesn't seem to do that.
As someone who typically is a top performer, I found the dance just added overhead. I must keep tallies of all my "goals" and lists of everything I've accomplished in every respective category, and then waste hours cranking out my side of the review. Sure, I don't have time for it, so I make time for it, meaning less time for sleep.
A good manager should know what you're contributing without this kabuki theater.
There are various firms that use a quarterly review/bonus cycle. While great, this fails to account for the slow moving hulks that are US corporations. Remember, in most places you'll not get in your "Annual Goals" until March/April, will have you mid year review done in September, and then have your annual review due by early November (lest people's year end vacations be a problem). How could you possibly hope for management to promulgate their vision and read a sheet of paper in 3 months or less?
Perhaps Profit Sharing is the better angle? At ZoomInfo, each quarter everyone gets a bonus based on the company profits of the quarter, distributed ~equally. If every everyone did a great job and company did well, everyone gets a bigger bonus. Not as great for the rockstars, but it's an incentive for everyone to work together. Of course, if the market is down, it will fail to incentivize people working their asses off to keep the company afloat.
What a few big name companies (e.g. Microsoft) are getting rid of is the "forced bell curve fit" rankings. The core issue supposedly that team members are loathe to help anyone else succeed as that may not benefit them in the appraisal.
Have heard that, in the new model, your manager gets a lot more liberty in deciding how to distribute the appraisal budget for the team instead of the hikes simply following a company-wide rule depending on the employee's rating tier.
My ex-employer went the opposite direction at the beginning of this year: moving towards appraisal related pay, complete with explanations of how management were being given special training on how to fit people to the right overall grade and even fewer top ratings were given out to make the whole thing cost neutral. You may be surprised to learn the process was not greeted by enthusiastic cheers.
As a former employee (I actually used to work in the office in the picture), I have to say I am very surprised and impressed by this move. I once had a manager on a multi year oracle and Java implementation who didn't know what a database was. That is no exaggeration. I mean that literally. One of my most frustrating memories was being reliant on this person for performance reviews and staking my future on her opinion of my performance. She had no ability to assess anybody's performance, yet miraculously found herself in the position of reviewing many very good employees. We lost several team members as a result (in fact my experience there in large part set the course for my own departure).
Not saying this will fix all the problems (inept management is a reality that exists in any organization of size) but it at least shows that top brass understands that the current system isn't working.
At my company we spend so much time on reviews it borders on the ridiculous and everyone is pretty much of the opinion they really don't matter unless the company wants to get rid of you at some point.
Yes it is better to point out the shortcoming right after completion of a project rather than reminding about that after a whole fucking year. This will benefit both employees and managers alike.
So many comments here reflecting ideas from the 2002 book "Abolishing Performance Appraisals - Why They Backfire and What to Do Instead".
I think it's well worth a read, especially if you're implementing or in a position to influence these sorts of processes.
Feedback is important, but once a year/half/quarter isn't really doing it. And ideally it shouldn't be related to what you're paid, though that's harder to convince people. It can work though, and the book provides some examples of alternatives.
Speaking as someone who has worked with Accenture people on a government contract, Accenture is the most hellish employer I have had any kind of near-direct experience with. Between the mandatory, unpaid social events, annual performance reports, monthly performance reports, weekly performance reports (which, due to scheduling, needed to be done before the month or week in question), the "career counsellor (who, according to those who worked for Accenture, was mind-bogglingly stupid), the Accenture manager (who made Dilbert's pointy-haired boss look competent and effective), and the assorted other inanities of government work, I wouldn't have lasted with them two months.
I won't work for IBM again because I've experienced their insanity, but I know people who were happy there; I wouldn't recommend Accenture to anyone, literally including Hitler.
Finally!
It was very disappointing that girl that smile and had good relationships with out senior manager had the same salary as me, even if i got the best score in our delivery center.
Doesn't equal pay legislation mean that in practise if you got a pay rise, assuming you're male, that any female doing what might appear in court to be the same job has to get the same pay rise??
IANAL, but I think that's what's sticky about equal pay, or one thing.
For a given job, not all _people_ will get the same pay, and as individuals, a particular man and a particular woman may not make the same, but across an organization we should find some balance, there should be women who make more than some men, etc..
I don't think anyone wants a situation where granting any individual a raise means that everyone with similar responsibilities (no two people 'do the same job') gets the same raise.
But as I type this, it's clear how all of this grey area can (and surely IS) be leaned upon to maintain the status quo.
I remember seeing a Show HN a while back to fill the void for ongoing performance feedback, which sounded interesting. I dug up the post and here is the site: http://finchreviews.com/
There's plans for the company I work for to remove their old system of reviews too. It was supposedly introduced to cut some chaff and instill a high performance culture but it resulted in arbitrary performance ratings and both unhappy employees and managers.
Also bad IMO are fixed number of job positions. For factories it might make sense, but for many other jobs... It is one of the reasons why I feel that employment anti-discrimination laws are ineffective.
Then the place got engulfed by this insane fad for "performance reviews", which is idiotic on its face for a number of reasons:
1. You request review feedback from peers - this is unworkable because if you work with someone who is useless, and you say so in their review, your working relationship with them becomes untenable;
2. The process also requires "self review", which is nothing but a mechanism for bullshitters to big themselves up. It is also time-consuming, and good people are generally too busy to dedicate much time to it; the bullshitters and timewasters otoh will happily dedicate days to polishing their lies and exaggerations;
3. In general the process massively favours those who play the performance review system, i.e. the politicians;
4. You are required to set "career objectives", which is almost entirely pointless since as a tech person you are largely constrained by what jobs need your skills at the particular moment you become available; there is little tolerance for people sitting around idle waiting for the perfect role that meets their desired objective.