Hacker News Reader

Comment by laweijfmvo | Hacker News Reader

  > posted on LinkedIn her surprise at being lumped in with supposed low performers after receiving an “exceeds expectations” in her mid-year review.

FWIW, this is misleading. mid-year reviews only have three ratings: "below", "at or above", and "significantly above" expectations. a lot of employees like to correlate these to the end-of-year ratings (of which there are seven), but there is no such guarantee.

View on HN

It’s wild to me that companies have come up with a way to screw over employees as they see fit. If I worked the entire year and met expectations or exceeded them, and then got lower rating at the end of the year because of a single project or a couple of things that came up in the quarter, then I call bullshit. And I say quarter because when you get the rating it’s actually been almost another quarter of work done and if there were concerns in that quarter they can be raised during the mid year review discussion.

It’s not annual performance evaluation if you don’t evaluate the whole year.

I remember from my time working in the US that you couldn't be too paranoid in the quarter in which you had the annual performance review. As a team was graded on forced distribution, team members were incentivized to screw over others competing for the tops grades. In other words, if someone with whom you seldom work suddenly wants to loop you into a project, you should be suspicious that it might be an attempt to blemish your perceived performance.

> companies have come up with a way to screw over employees as they see fit

It's something every company wants, and most likely have already.

> It’s wild to me that companies have come up with a way to screw over employees as they see fit.

Capitalism is a new concept. /s

Reply on news.ycombinator.com