How was your first performance review?

It was a complete and utter waste of time, as has been every other performance review I have ever been a part of.

Performance reviews from bosses are almost always useless and do more harm than good. The only possible exception I've seen might be in research settings where supervisors sometimes work closely with you and may actually be qualified to evaluate your work. But in that case, usually they are already giving you feedback during the process and a formal performance review is just a checkbox item to satisfy their own supervisor or funding organization.

Moreover it is generally impossible to have a fair and honest discussion with someone who can fire you or influence your pay.

Actual feedback on your work from skilled technical people on your team and actual users is generally far more useful than a performance review and can be gathered at any time.

Odd that many in this thread blame performance reviews themselves ("complete and utter waste of time", "waste of time and simply busy work", etc) and not the manager giving them.

For your manager to do it right requires some courage (to give negative feedback), maturity (to do it professionally), training (e.g. never deliver feedback in 'the compliment sandwich') and empathy (to relate to the employee's POV). Obviously most managers lack these.

E.g. Some employees are over-eager and blitz colleagues: "Hey did you get the email I just sent 30 seconds ago?" Others like to have Jira ticket comment wars. A good manager would give direct feedback routinely throughout the year.

"Hey Bob, blowing up my inbox with dozens of IMs and emails in a single day is counter-productive."

"Hey Suzy, that 750-word Jira comment about why your dispatch function to the React store is a better approach then Duane's could have been better handled face-to-face."

Then the performance review is hopefully a boring, pedestrian summary of stuff talked about all year.

Instead managers are afraid to give feedback and wait until January to tell you all the things they hate about you. Plus your review is likely tied to your compensation/promotion, often making it unnecessarily a high-stress, do-or-die bombshell.

What's really important these days (IMHO) is not the review itself since nowadays everyone changes jobs like they change pants, what matters is your ability to receive negative feedback like an adult and adapt. It means having a manager who can give negative feedback like an adult (a big if) but that will likely help you more in your career than generic pats on the back.

Happy review season everyone.

Somehow I ended up getting a perfect score in every category, which in my company is not typical and I was given pretty much no feedback.

I'm confident my manager was scolded for the score he gave me by his boss or hr.

Ever since he's given me the most middle of the road scores . The only take away I've gotten from this experience is that performance reviews in my company are more political then actually reflective of your performance.

My company had just started doing performance reviews, as they had been growing a lot (generic small startup with unlimited vacation and all that) and it was That Time. So this was a quarterly performance review, but was my first after having worked there 1-2 years.

The system had six levels resembling standard deviations in a normal distribution, so ~2% at the extreme high and extreme low. In parallel, you pick one for yourself and describe why in text, and your manager picks one for you and describes why in text. Then some software simultaneously shares them between you, and you have a 1:1 to discuss things you didn't agree on, or that one of you brought up but not the other.

I rated myself as the highest level, because I thought I was the second-highest level and had learned that my opinions about myself are generally lower than others' opinions of me, so I decided to purposefully account for imposter syndrome. My manager rated me as the second-highest level and said that the only thing keeping me from the highest level was the amount of vacation I'd taken that quarter.

I'd taken 5 weeks off that quarter. It's a lot for a quarter, but it was also the only time I'd taken off the whole year, and 5 weeks was the "recommended" yearly amount. So I wasn't sure how to feel, and second-highest level didn't seem like something to complain about.

Still not sure how I feel five years later because I do see both sides and it's a hard problem to fairly solve. But I live a happy life and don't have any complaints, so I don't let it get to me. It's just a performance review, and you will look back in 10 years from a different job, city, and/or life situation wondering why you cared so much.

At first confusing, then enlightening. When I was hired, I was told many things about the values of the company, how much they wanted people to think about doing things differently and create innovation even if it was not directly profitable, how much they value diverse contributions and thought, and most importantly, how it's not all about the bottom line here.

I was praised in my 1 year performance review to no end and given great feedback by my manager about new initiatives I had worked on or projects I had done. When I got my official paper copy of the review, it had a score that equaled C- because my estimated revenue contribution was ~5% below my role's average and that was essentially the only thing that mattered for performance evaluation score and bonus/promotion opportunities.

Knowing this, I focused much more on making money the next year and got a much better grade. I left the company shortly after that and I'm still mad they were not just honest with me at the start. I would have taken another job if I knew that was what the deal was, which I suspect is why they lied.

My first performance review came 6 months after I started at IBM. I was basically told that I did everything perfectly but I still got what amounted to a middling "satisfactory" rating. My manager told me that I will get a better score next year if I change nothing about my performance, and the "satisfactory" rating was due to company policy and my not having worked there a full year yet. I later learned that managers have a budget of how many good/medium/bad ratings they can hand out, and the choice of who gets what is 100% arbitrary and up to the manager. Big company politics I guess . I proceeded to have many much better years after that, fortunately.

I seem to be going against the grain here, but I actually find them generally useful. I have a 1-2-1 with my Line Manager every 4 weeks and I find it great to discuss what I have been doing.

My manager asks about what ive been working on, if the pace is good for me and if there is anything holding me back.

I can be frank on how I feel about things (Ive mentioned that I felt I wasnt doing any productive work, because I wasnt comfortable with the experience I had and didnt want to slow down the team) and get honest feedback with them actually trying to help. Its also a great time for me to improve our relationship and ask about the future (Whats happening with this team? How is this project going? When will I be able to do x?).

The main issue here seems to be managers who don't care, not the process itself.

My first performance review was at my third job. I was promoted to lead dev in my first six months at my first job and by the time my review came up we had been acquired. In my second job I was made redundant a few days before my review.

My first review was a total waste of time, but I only learned this after my second review. In my first review I was given an "average" rating, because my technical knowledge was high, but some of my projects were late. Most of this was out of my control, and was down to the fact that I refused to work in my free time to make up for shoddy project management. I was also told that I could apply for a mid-level promotion, despite already being mid-level. I played ball regardless, and got my "promotion" and pay rise.

My second review was "outstanding", and I learned that my job title, at least internally, was now senior-level. While I was a better developer after 12 months, the only thing that had changed was that the manager that did my last review had left and my new manager liked me. The only constant was the managing director, and when I questioned what made the company decide I had gone from junior to senior within the space of a year they couldn't give an answer. Despite being given a nicer job title, more responsibility, and more money, I was annoyed at how stupid the process was.

A day earlier, one of our best developers was given a poor review. The manager didn't like him because his project was grossly behind schedule. This was no fault of his own, and he was being punished because he took on a very hard project and was ignored when he requested that we start from scratch due to the issues with the initial build. His review wasn't a reflection of his skill, because skill-wise he was way above everyone else there. His review was down to how liked he was, and whether he played "the game".

I've been a developer for a decade now, and I can't name a single review that was worth my time, because ultimately the outcome has always been obvious. I always try to be positive and to show empathy where possible, and for around 6+ years that approach has always given me solid reviews. The technical side has always been largely irrelevant, even when working with languages/tools that are new to me.

Right out of college, I got hired into a team that maintained trading software for a big bank. I was thoroughly disinterested in trading, which made it quite difficult for me to understand the needs of the people for whom I was maintaining software. Looking back, I realize that because of my disinterest in trading, I was a terrible fit for that job, and I was quite unhappy and non-performant as a result.

The mediocre performance review I got helped me realize that I was a poor fit for my team, and it motivated me to transfer to a different team which was a better fit.

My next few performance reviews were much better, but I eventually left the big bank for a startup, and now I am as happy as a clam!

I advise first-timers to make friendships with managers other than the one they report to, and ask their help to interpret the results of the review. It's difficult to interpret the results of a performance review without the benefit of mental separation (the ability to look at it in an impartial way, without being blinded by ego) and experience, both of which an experienced manager should have. If nothing else, having a sympathetic and interested human you trust interpret these results is bound to help a great deal.

For bonus points, identify and cultivate a few older mentors, and keep in touch with them even after you move to new teams and new jobs. For even more bonus points, pick up a mentee or two when you gain a few years of experience.

Consider doing your own review first. Then do a review based on what you consider as your manager's point of view. If you can get some other opinions about how you seem at various points of time, eg your partner's perspective, this might be useful as well. Your general vibe of not being grouchy after various events throughout should be applicable. Feed this all into your own review of yourself. Was the year doing this work actually successful and good for you? Were you a good fit? What worked? What didn't?

Two perspectives:-

One of my early reviews: Complete and utter waste of time. Nothing said by the manager was useful for the future. No actionable items. Useless evaluation criteria and meaningless bland comments. I read the notes afterwards three times and got advice from others to verify. Their advice: get out fast.

My review at my next job was great and set the stage for much better results. I actually saw the gaps I needed to fill and multiple possibilities for improvement and alternative pathways to access them. Helped with a training plan and what I needed to cover as a educational framework for the next 10 years.

The difference was night and day. If the review is merely a checklist item then its unlikely to be useful.

Performance reviews are a waste of time and simply busy work. When you’re a star performer but not getting a raise then you leave.

My first performance review was around 2013 or so on my first job, after not doing any significant work for the first few months I was worried I was asking my manager too many questions. I was told I was doing great. I then got a 25% raise next month without anyone communicating anything else to me (not a lot of money but the percentage is still significant at that point).

Since then, and despite not being the best worker in any group I've been in, I've have had good to stellar reviews that resulted in no actionable items and no salary adjustments.

This whole experience does lead me to believe that performance reviews are very hard to get right (ie. to make them actually useful).

As a general rule it should be transparent to you what is evaluated how. Is it subjective feedback ("I have the feeling you could benefit from looking through your code before submitting to review."), is it some kind of arbitrary metric ("Your change requests take way more iterations than the average before being merged.") or is it some kind of pre-arranged evaluation scheme ("You scored only 3 out of 10 on the code quality.").

With that knowledge you can prepare a defense or proactive suggestions for improvement if you feel the need. It could also give you something to use as an argument for a raise.

Performance reviews. If you didn't demotivate your employees till now, now it's the time.

I've read somewhere that as a manager you don't have to motivate the people, you just have to be careful not to demotivate them.

My first performance review as an employee was good. I had a manager that cared about his employees and understood their strengths and weaknesses. I was challenged on some key shortcomings but got enough positive feedback and reward to keep me motivated. He had good visibility into what I was doing and what its impact (or lack thereof) was.

My first performance review that I gave as a manager was terrible. My employee was twice my age, and I'd managed him for 2 months. He came into the room and his first words were "Yeah. I think in my entire career, this kind of thing has only been useful once."

It was very positive. This was back when we had 'ratings' like On Target, Above Target, Significantly Above Target, etc. I only joined a couple of months before the review period so it was not really a full review. I got positive feedback which told me that if I continue on the same track I'll be performing well above target in the next review. I got a nice raise and bonus. Eventually we got rid of the rating system, but the reviews have come with useful feedback and a decent compensation bump in the form of bonuses, salary, and RSUs each year.

It takes me about 3 years of working closely with someone before I can give them useful feedback. And when I want to give someone feedback, I take them out for a walk or go get coffee with them and ask them if they're willing to take some feedback from me.

Don't expect too much from your official performance reviews, especially in terms of actionable feedback. However, sometimes reviews can teach you that the way others perceive your value to the team/company might be very different from your own beliefs of what you think you're good at.

Most people are too nice in reviews. You probably won’t get better as a result.

Respect people who give it to you straight, even if it costs you the ego stroke of a promotion. Your career is a marathon, so your first performance review is like the first half mile - focus on your process, and getting better, rather than being ahead of the competition.

The only good performance reviews I’ve gotten are when I evaluated myself. But of course, those are laden with bias.

They didn't inform me that it was a performance review. I did not notice that it was a performance review. It wasn't made clear what or weather i was doing well or should change behavior. I didn't interpret the meeting as intended to have any effect on my employment. It was months later, after I had started hearing friends talk about their performance reviews, that I realized that I had one as well.

My manager set no goals. I received an email in Feb (appraisal was April-March following year) that I did Ok but have to do better to get more money or be promoted. No goals again next year. Same feedback. Forced my manager to set goals for the following year. Managers changed. Had to start over. Left my jobs. If a company says that there are no fixed goals or no fixed vacation days, run. Run and dont look back.

Boss said I was too slow. It's a confusing bit of feedback because colleagues were telling me to slow down. I graduated from a pretty elite university where we had a weekend to write a client+server in C... and my first job was PHP. So the work felt trivial.

I feel that it was just a negotiation tactic. I quit after a year there. He proposed a counter-offer later, but I decided to try elsewhere.

Don't fear it.

If you have a good boss/coach it will be constructive and you'll identify areas to improve on and maybe get some training if you want.

If you have a bad one you will get rated on some scales, make some goals nobody will give you room to work on. Just get through it quickly and try to keep the goals remotely realistic so you can still convince them to a raise later..

I think these reviews depend on your manager. If you have a good manager, they will make it important, meaningful, and worthwhile. Plus dependant on how well the reviewee prepares for the review and how serious they take it. That being said, these type of managers are rare. I'm generally unimpressed with performance reviews.

1995/6? Went to the pub. Founder told me I was getting a pay rise from £13,600 to £15,600. He then made a pantomime of patting his pockets before saying he’d left his wallet in the office...

Simpler times back then.

My overall grade was 'Outstanding', but I joined in Feb, so had a good -5 months before I was reviewed. Apparently it's difficult to get this where I work.

I don’t remember...it was in early 1998.

My favorite part was that the only negative marks I got was on leadership. My manager admit that I was not given any power or opportunity to demonstrate my leadership skills.

I got a raise, but ended up leaving 6 months later.