Performance review process
-
@morbiuswilters said:
You know who liked to invoke automobile analogies to explain complex, abstract systems, don't you?
Man, that is like blaming the car for the driver.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@C-Octothorpe said:
Say you had a shit year, only 3%, but if you had an awesome year and saved four puppies, then its 7%, etc...
The difference between the worst employee and the best employee is 3.88%? That's rather depressing.
It's not the difference that matters, it is the ratio... the best got 1.333x (133%) of what the worst got.
-
@TheCPUWizard said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@C-Octothorpe said:
Say you had a shit year, only 3%, but if you had an awesome year and saved four puppies, then its 7%, etc...
The difference between the worst employee and the best employee is 3.88%? That's rather depressing.
It's not the difference that matters, it is the ratio... the best got1.333x (133%)2.333x (233%) of what the worst got.FTFY
It's always interesting to hear about how differently organizations deal with pay raises. I consider myself fortunate that I've generally worked at places where yearly raises were the norm, outside of any raises for promotions. It's also important to note that year over year 7% raises changes a lot vs 3% year over year.
-
@boomzilla said:
@TheCPUWizard said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@C-Octothorpe said:
Say you had a shit year, only 3%, but if you had an awesome year and saved four puppies, then its 7%, etc...
The difference between the worst employee and the best employee is 3.88%? That's rather depressing.
It's not the difference that matters, it is the ratio... the best got1.333x (133%)2.333x (233%) of what the worst got.FTFY
It's always interesting to hear about how differently organizations deal with pay raises. I consider myself fortunate that I've generally worked at places where yearly raises were the norm, outside of any raises for promotions. It's also important to note that year over year 7% raises changes a lot vs 3% year over year.
You are correct, I did the math as "more than", then screwed up the language (or viceversa...) ... in either case me bad...
FWIW at 7% you double every 11 years. At 3% it takes 26.....so yes, it is a big difference.
-
You have to love compounding interest rate problems. This reminds of an xkcd, but I will spare you all from it (pfft yah right... http://xkcd.com/947/).
-
@C-Octothorpe said:
@Peraninth said:
So what do they base your raise on then? I thought how it works is that you will always get a raise, but the percentage is based on performance. Say you had a shit year, only 3%, but if you had an awesome year and saved four puppies, then its 7%, etc... I'm sure it varies from company to company, but I thought it was along those lines.@C-Octothorpe said:
Disclaimer: I've been contracting for years, and have never been through a performance review.
Wouldn't not doing the review prevent you from ever getting a raise?
Here's the rub at this place. They don't do performance raises and the boss has already told us no one is getting fired. So I think the only reason they do them here is for beaurocratic bs and/or legal reasons.
I've worked at places that had performance reviews and scheduled raises, and well as places that do not. In my experience, the places that don't give raises or reviews pay more on average than the places that do. This is anecdotal, of course, but one theory I have about places that are annual-review-obsessed is that the reviews are an attempt to lend an air of legitimacy to below-market salaries. ("Well, we've estimated your performance to 5 significant digits using this consultant-blessed formula, and $31,000 per annum is actually just right. And you participated in the whole process!" ) Another factor at play may be that the places that do periodic reviews (and give little raises as a result) are just not very productive business units. After all, they apparently have time to do annual reviews. Really, reviews are something I would associate with a job at a government facility, not-for-profit, or a utility. They are not the sort of thing I would associate with, for example, Wall Street or a startup company, and those are the sorts of places where bigger salaries can be had. My advice: get the money you want / need up front. You will not get it later!
-
@bridget99 said:
I've worked at places that had performance reviews and scheduled raises, and well as places that do not. In my experience, the places that don't give raises or reviews pay more on average than the places that do. This is anecdotal, of course, but one theory I have about places that are annual-review-obsessed is that the reviews are an attempt to lend an air of legitimacy to below-market salaries. ("Well, we've estimated your performance to 5 significant digits using this consultant-blessed formula, and $31,000 per annum is actually just right. And you participated in the whole process!" ) Another factor at play may be that the places that do periodic reviews (and give little raises as a result) are just not very productive business units. After all, they apparently have time to do annual reviews. Really, reviews are something I would associate with a job at a government facility, not-for-profit, or a utility. They are not the sort of thing I would associate with, for example, Wall Street or a startup company, and those are the sorts of places where bigger salaries can be had. My advice: get the money you want / need up front. You will not get it later!
I've seen performance reviews at small companies, but at most places they didn't have a formal review process.
Of course, your last point completely devalues equity, which is a big part of a lot of startups.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@bridget99 said:
I've worked at places that had performance reviews and scheduled raises, and well as places that do not. In my experience, the places that don't give raises or reviews pay more on average than the places that do. This is anecdotal, of course, but one theory I have about places that are annual-review-obsessed is that the reviews are an attempt to lend an air of legitimacy to below-market salaries. ("Well, we've estimated your performance to 5 significant digits using this consultant-blessed formula, and $31,000 per annum is actually just right. And you participated in the whole process!" ) Another factor at play may be that the places that do periodic reviews (and give little raises as a result) are just not very productive business units. After all, they apparently have time to do annual reviews. Really, reviews are something I would associate with a job at a government facility, not-for-profit, or a utility. They are not the sort of thing I would associate with, for example, Wall Street or a startup company, and those are the sorts of places where bigger salaries can be had. My advice: get the money you want / need up front. You will not get it later!
I've seen performance reviews at small companies, but at most places they didn't have a formal review process.
Of course, your last point completely devalues equity, which is a big part of a lot of startups.
Everything I posted ignores the possibility of getting rich off of company stock. If that's your goal, then I wouldn't worry about salary (or raises) very much.
I don't have much experience with equity, though. You've read my posts... I'm not really the startup type. I just don't have the necessary enthusiasm for technology. I'm more of a frustrated "Chainsaw" Al Dunlap than a frustrated Steve Jobs.
