A blueprint for performance management

Re:A blueprint for performance management by jeffrapp on Wednesday August 16, 2017 @05:35PM (#15031576)

Seen this as well. Does somebody in management really expect leadership roles to sit down every 6 to 12 months, discuss everything their employees have done, and do it objectively? That's a fast track to giving everybody but the absolute worst a 5 out of 5 every time.

I'm a big proponent of the one-on-one approach, and giving feedback as needed. I am curious, however, typically the review cycle is correlated with the raise and bonus cycle. How would you go about handling that process with the data points that the review cycle provides, however artificial they may be.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A blueprint for performance management by quantumhobbit on Wednesday August 16, 2017 @08:11PM (#15032533)

I would ask why is there a set cycle for raises? If an employee is valuable enough for a raise why wait and risk a competitor poaching them before the cycle comes around?

That may sound far fetched but my current company has a very rigid and well known cycle and I swear that recruiters know about it. I get way more recruiter calls leading up to raises than afterwards.

Good on you for noticing that the annual review data is artificial. I suspect that is why these processes exist. Companies want to base there decisions on data and don't care if that data is meaningless.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A blueprint for performance management by noitsnot on Wednesday August 16, 2017 @10:48PM (#15033407)

Some companies are so top heavy and tenured they simply don't care. Executives run the show and they could care less who comes and goes.

[ Parent | on HN ]