Hacker News Reader

Comment by cjg | Hacker News Reader

I'm all in favour of a regular informal discussion around what aspects of the job are being done well and what could be improved.

But I suspect you are talking about something more formal, something tied to salary increases.

I think such appraisals are damaging to the relationship between employer and employee. The only benefit is for the company in that they make it clear that you can't have maximum marks on everything (which is fair enough), but then tie that to salary increases. "Well, we would have given you a bigger pay rise, but you didn't get top marks on this particular skill." Or similarly, evidence to get rid of someone you wanted out.

View on HN

Yeah my firm really emphasizes the importance of feedback, but insists it happen via formal reviews which then drive compensation. Which is idiotic. You'll never get genuine feedback if you tie it to compensation because the feedback will be driven by how much the reviewer wants the reviewee to get a raise. So basically by how much they like the person. It's a stupid system that gets almost nothing right.

This is how it works places where I've been in my career. Without getting into details, they have a few set scores and there isn't much of a range. Unless you get all top marks—no raise. If you receive less than average—no cost of living adjustment.

Typically what you'll see is 2% increase a year if you're a moderate/good employee. It takes a special effort to not be, and it's basically impossible to be above that in their books, and especially in most roles.

They also often tie specific job titles to salary grades, so there's a black box facing you in terms of what your manager is allowed to pay. Couple that with yearly culling of the fleet and you've got a pretty tough space to navigate if you just want to advance at your role.

You either have to be promoted to receive a raise, or be hired in at a higher rate.

How could salary increases be determined then?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com