It's true that most of my managers have been terrible, which I think is honestly par for the course (statistically at least).
I have had good managers, but for them, the performance review process actually tends to hamper them. A good manager who knows all the people under them are amazing and then has to stack rank them is going to make someone mad. Your manager only has so much power. Then it's their manager, and their manager. Managers don't have infinite amount of social capital, or even the amount they deserve. Some have too much.
I agree, performance reviews can be a time to get feedback and make changes, but in general, I find the continuous feedback (from standup/team, customers, daily work, incoming types of bugs) much more useful. If anything, I feel that my written reviews have had a lot of dissonance with the financial results or lack of promotion. Many times I can have glowing written reviews, but due to stack ranking, budget, or whatever other excuse they want to use, many times it just doesn't line up with results from management. And it's impossible to hold management to account in general, which is why HR is there.
So when you're doing bad, performance reviews are a stick. And when you're doing good, they dangle the carrot, but many times you can't grab it. Then they force everyone to do mandatory training about how objective the process is, even though it really isn't. And that level of gaslighting has spelled the end for many good employee/employer relationships IMHO.
I don't disagree, especially about "stack ranking" which is, I believe, ridiculous and I've pushed back hard on it whenever it was suggested.
That said, I think calling them "performance reviews" to be a disservice as well. (I prefer 'Focal Reviews'). I try to stress in reviews a write the ways in which I feel the person is making progress against their medium and long term goals, and where they are perhaps stuck.
In terms of promotion and pay however, we may disagree. I try to distinguish between someone improving as an engineer and someone doing a good job. It is a subtle difference but it is an important one to me.
Using the example of a fictional programmer, if they get their part of the projects done on time and their code is of high quality and reliable. Then I think they have done a great job and if I can I seek to give them a bonus of some sort to reward that.
If this same programmer gets their part of the project done, and helps others getting their stuff together, and perhaps refactors the project so that everyone has an easier time integrating and testing? Then they are a better engineer because they are acting as a force multiplier for the entire team. Those are the people I try to promote.
I'm not a big fan of raises for "time served" as one manager I knew put it, although I do believe you have to adjust to the market so if salaries are going up across the board you should reflect that in the pay of your engineers.
It is always my goal that annual focal reviews are not a 'surprise', rather they are a summary of the previous 12 months.
I have had good managers, but for them, the performance review process actually tends to hamper them. A good manager who knows all the people under them are amazing and then has to stack rank them is going to make someone mad. Your manager only has so much power. Then it's their manager, and their manager. Managers don't have infinite amount of social capital, or even the amount they deserve. Some have too much.
I agree, performance reviews can be a time to get feedback and make changes, but in general, I find the continuous feedback (from standup/team, customers, daily work, incoming types of bugs) much more useful. If anything, I feel that my written reviews have had a lot of dissonance with the financial results or lack of promotion. Many times I can have glowing written reviews, but due to stack ranking, budget, or whatever other excuse they want to use, many times it just doesn't line up with results from management. And it's impossible to hold management to account in general, which is why HR is there.
So when you're doing bad, performance reviews are a stick. And when you're doing good, they dangle the carrot, but many times you can't grab it. Then they force everyone to do mandatory training about how objective the process is, even though it really isn't. And that level of gaslighting has spelled the end for many good employee/employer relationships IMHO.