For context, it’s best to read my initial blog on this topic: Appraisals

Our review system basically involves us stating some salient things we have done, and we have to rate it against a few categories of values, and rate it 1-4, but we are only really allowed to score it a 3.

So my Performance Review is complete. To nobody’s surprise; I was scored a 3. My manager asked if I was surprised by the score, and I said I wasn’t because that is what everyone else would have got. She said that some people did get a 4. Not sure how; it doesn’t make sense to me.

I think if I went above my role, I’d expect push back from someone. Imagine waltzing into another department like Support with the aim of being “collaborative” – and start demanding changes. Then they are like “who the hell are you? Someone call security!”. If a development manager went in there and started demanding changes, then people would listen. In reality, they would organise a meeting, but their meeting would be accepted, and mine wouldn’t. The reason is that I’m just a developer and have no authority. Yet, if it did happen, I can then tick the boxes of Collaborative Working, Initiative, Innovation etc.

Even trying to take the lead on a project is a tough one. People’s job title’s give a natural hierarchy. When you have a designated Lead, then some Seniors, what chance does a Developer have at even running a meeting, never-mind designing some architecture? The only time it’s gonna happen if people are on annual leave for multiple days or have extended leave. Then you have to spot the opportunity, and take it.

In another meeting, I was talking to a different manager, and raised my concerns about the review process. He then told me that someone in the team got scored a 2.

How? If you read my previous blog on Appraisals, I mentioned how I tried to score myself a 2 for some areas, and I got rejected. If you talk about your score with your manager in your monthly 1-to-1 meetings, even if they did tell you that you have scored a 2 that month, then you will just step up your game, or write more justifications on the sheet to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Even if you did score 2 for 3 months or so, then are scored 3 for the final 9 months, surely your overall score would become 3 anyway? So how can you end up with a 2 unless you have consistently under-performed, done nothing to correct it, and even agreed with your manager that it is fine to be scored a 2? Surely no one in their right mind would do that.

The only reason I can think of is if the scoring hasn’t been consistently applied. Now if you read my previous blog on Appraisals, I mention that we have arrived at this current process with the aim that it is the fairest way of assessing someone, and would be consistently applied.

So let’s talk about the consistency.

Firstly, the goalposts were constantly moved during the year. We were told to fill out a basic spreadsheet, then a month later, new columns were added, then the criteria was changed, then we had to add a personal objective in addition to the default ones. Then there was an additional sheet to fill in. Then near the end of the year, someone told me the criteria had changed, but yet my line manager never told me that. So by the end of the year, some teams were using a different system.

Secondly, sometimes people with the same line manager as me told me extra tips, or about approaching deadlines, but my manager had somehow forgot to tell me about it.

Thirdly, we were initially told our final score mattered and there was no chance of promotion during the year. Then half-way in, an email comes in from HR saying how there is a Mid-Year mini review where some people will be promoted, and we had 3 weeks to submit our forms. However, that same day, we get an announcement from a manager in the department stating that 3 people had just been promoted…but yet they hadn’t completed their forms; the Mid-Year review hadn’t happened yet. For the Mid-Year review, I was struggling to finalise it, and my manager said I had till the end of the week, and she would submit what I had by Monday because it’s a hard deadline. On Monday, when the deadline had apparently passed, I overheard her say to someone else that they had until Wednesday.

Fourthly, even though I said we have monthly 1-to-1’s where we agree a monthly score for the items we submit, one member of my team said he hadn’t done that since the Mid-Year, and he had to cobble something together to submit for the End Of Year Review.

The thing is, because of the poor management of projects this year, there’s been many moments where I have been idle. When we have had requirements, they haven’t been clear and there hasn’t been great scope to actually shine. So if you compare my productivity to previous years, maybe you would give me a 2, rather than 3, but that’s not even really my fault.

I also think any metrics shouldn’t change people’s behaviour. However there was one time where I heard someone say something along the lines of “I have been investigating TechnologyX but it’s not really feasible.” Her colleague then said “so are you free to pick something else up?”, then she replied “no, I’m going to investigate it further so I can add more detail to my appraisal documents”.

In a similar fashion, there are plenty of times in the stand-ups where people say “today I am updating my documents” or “I am doing personal development”. The fact that people spend entire days updating a document instead of doing actual work – is a massive problem.

I also think people try and introduce ideas just so they can tick some boxes for innovation on their documents. I don’t see any reason why teams would switch from Code Build, to GitHub Actions, then Jenkins unless there is some extra personal incentive.

I think if the review system was consistently applied, was set-in-stone rather than constantly evolving, and we had no surprise deadlines spring up on us; then the review system would be acceptable. I feel like I can only give this system a 1 out of 4.

Hopefully it will be better next year.