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.
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.