We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Posted on
Most developers universally agree that performance reviews (and the related salary negotiations) suck!
Do you have an example of a performance review process that does not suck? Personal anecdote? Links to blog posts/articles?
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
Yulia Kondrashova -
Areeba Farooq -
Tina Huynh -
Milena Brito -
Once suspended, ohryan will not be able to comment or publish posts until their suspension is removed.
Once unsuspended, ohryan will be able to comment and publish posts again.
Once unpublished, all posts by ohryan will become hidden and only accessible to themselves.
If ohryan is not suspended, they can still re-publish their posts from their dashboard.
Once unpublished, this post will become invisible to the public and only accessible to Ryan.
They can still re-publish the post if they are not suspended.
Thanks for keeping DEV Community safe. Here is what you can do to flag ohryan:
Unflagging ohryan will restore default visibility to their posts.
Discussion (8)
We don't have performance-reviews and salary-negotiations are usually tied to moving from junior to mid-level to senior, except the yearly few % organic salary-increase to balance inflation.
One that doesn't suck for me would be a constructive feedback-meeting, with your lead, where they try to get a good picture of your impact and behaviour within your team and company beforehand.
This of course goes both ways, so you as employee should also review your companies performance and give feedback accordingly. Is this a seller's market or what.
Interesting. What are the criteria for moving from junior to mid to senior?
I like this a lot!
I don't have much to offer other than the review should happen all year long via 1:1's and quarterly discussions. This way there's no surprise at the end of the year. And both sides should keep notes throughout the year to remove any recency bias around the annual checkin.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
Is there something about the performance review process itself that can help it not suck?
I'm having a hard time explaining exactly what I mean... things like the criteria employees are reviewed on, the structure of the review documents/procedures, frequency of the review, etc. Sort of like, the nuts and bolts of the process itself. Or is it all about the reviewer's approach?
IYHO what makes those 1 in 10 performance reviews not suck?