narenchoudhary

It was pretty standard (at least on paper) in my last company (a top 10 bank in terms of total assets).

1. Agree OKRs with managers in the beginning of the year (to be completed by March). Everyone at same level/hierarchy will have same baseline.

2. Performance evaluation in October. Employees discuss their achievements with managers.

3. Results disclosed in February.

This waterfall-ish process never really worked:

1. Over the year priorities change, teams evolve, and products take new directions. So, everyone used to put vague OKRs.

2. Evaluation process is a black box. Performance metrics (if there really were any) were never disclosed, and were calibrated at multiple levels.

3. You get to know only your evaluation. No data to compare to whatsoever.

I've seen this doing damage only. People with good visibility, and network used to get better ratings despite average work. Silent hard-workers will get average ratings, and will leave.

I feel people who are only willing to point out negatives (without any appreciation for good parts) should refrain from giving feedback. Frankly speaking, such feedback isn't very motivating.