In software engineering organisations that are larger than 10 people, annual or biannual performance reviews are very common.<p>Do folks think this is a useful thing to do?
What are the methods people use to do this?
What are the pain points?
In practice, perf reviews seem to have become record-keeping tools for organizations to keep plausible deniability when firing people.<p>But in theory, I think performance reviews are underrated. I would love a weekly performance review if I could have one. Fast feedback is an essential component for learning -- biannual reviews come wayyyyy too late. I want to know what my manager thinks I'm doing wrong <i>now</i> haha
> Do folks think this is a useful thing to do?<p>I do. It is a ritual, the impact of rituals on productivity is well understood [1], but then there is [2] and we live in a post-factual world and we'll all dissolve into nothingness eventually anyway [3]<p>I think rituals carry value for some type of people (those who think rituals are a good thing) and provide value to some of the people who don't like them (eg. those who would slack off or lose focus without them). I also believe there is a subset of free thinkers who are constrained by rituals. I also think not all rituals should apply equally to everybody.<p>> What are the methods people use to do this?<p>Target definition and evaluation at fixed intervals or when roles change.<p>> What are the pain points?<p>Rituals that exist on paper but have no real impact, excessive exceptions, insufficient leverage and rewards.<p>[1] <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00288.x" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-2370....</a><p>[2] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis</a><p>[3] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe</a>