Microsoft Annual Review 2011
It has become a tradition for folks to share their review numbers to help get a sense of what's happening and how your numbers stack up. This year we have a new challenge of working through an entirely new review system and (for engineering) a pay-raise for the levels most at risk of departing for greener pastures. I know folks on the edge of leaving who have been willing to hang on to see what happens.
What's a good format? How about something like the following, obfuscated as you wish:
- L# (promo'd?)
- Bucket (1+, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
- Merit % (/Promo %) / Engineering?
- Bonus $K
- Stock $K
- Optional comments about Division / Group, discipline, impression of review
If you like the review system, I'd really like to understand why (something better than, "whee, I got a 1+," please) and I'd encourage commenters to not slam the positive perspectives. I'm not too pleased with the new system at all because I feel very good engineers in my org are getting lower results because of a very strict curve. I'm probably breaking the rules in that if an excellent person got a 3 I'm having my folks be truthful in writing review feedback that, yes, they did an excellent job, just when it comes to the 3 realize that more people did even more excellent work and what it is they need to do to step it up (or, you know, start connecting recruiters with all of those competing 1s and 2s). Same thing for 4s who are doing a good job and not really having any performance problem. HR would prefer me to write the text of the review according to the verbiage of the ranking system, but screw that. I did that years ago when people got a trended 3.0 and I'm still scrubbing those dark spots of demoralizing compliance off my soul.
How do you feel, whether you're a manager writing reviews this year and comparing results to last year, or an IC trying to make sense of your compensation and recognition?
1,309 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1001 – 1200 of 1309 Newer› Newest»L64
Bucket - 3
Merit - 2.55%
R&D - 5%
Stock2$$$ - $1500
Bonus - 10% BES
Stock - 100% (~24K)
Thought myself and team might be treated poorly after early FY11 re-org, but I think we were treatly fairly in most but not all cases.
As a former 10+ year softie (layoff 5/09) I really feel for you guys - many of you are getting the shaft. There is life after MS, and the grass if significantly greener. Good luck.
Ultimately it's your word against your manager's, and the manager always wins.
L60 (since 12 months)
no promo
Bucket: 1
Merit: 4.8%
Promo: 5%
Bonus: 10 k€ (14k$)
Stock: 10 k$
Overall OK.
Working outside of the US..
=> nice bonus & stock
but no leveling.. even for good perfomers.
x
"What happens if you don't sign your EOY review?"
Absolutely nothing other than pissing off everyone in your management chain.
There's no legal requirement for you to sign your reveiw, it's internal policy. And teams are judged by executives for their completion percents, so if you don't sign you only make your leadership even more focused on getting rid of you.
Unless an actual lawyer has reviewed your situation and told you not to sign for whatever reason, there is zero benefit to refusing to sign your review or including a rebuttal. Just shut up and sign, or put your money where your mouth is and sue.
Nobody at Microsoft cares about fair or unfair, and nobody wants to hear your story because it just wastes their time from ass-kissing whoever they're ass-kissing. Every minute spent dealing with your issue just makes them want you gone more.
Truth.
Indeed there were layoffs on 9/7: Two people on my team of 20 in EPG.
I got my review, a 5 was hinted at prior to the review and that's what I got.
My question was what do I have to do to get a 1 or 2 (inline with previous reviews). Answer "keep doing what you're doing". I was speechless, it's all BS.
Until the a new opportunity comes along I'm the super happy employee doing just what is required. No more killing myself for this kind of appreciation.
L64
Bucket: 4
Numbers are in line with what is expected.
My reaction? I'm still in shock. I've been at Microsoft for 11.5 years. In the years of the old 1-5 system (where 5 was good), my average was a 4.0. I even got a 4.5 once. In the previous system, I got all Exceededs (several with E/20).
I got no warning from my manager that this was coming, although I sort of suspected the results wouldn't be good because of a general sense of isolation that I was feeling. You know... when people won't talk to you and generally leave you in the dark.
In some ways, although in shock, I'm not that unhappy. I've made up my mind that I will never go through this again. I've been wanting to leave the toxic MS atmosphere for some time, and get back to developing software again. (I started as a dev and transitioned to PM about 5 years ago. That was the worse career decision that I made. )I'm looking forward to learning open source development tools. I am starting to imagine having fun at work again... away from Microsoft.
Senior IC, no promo
rating 1
merit 5%
stock to base several thousand
bonus 20K
stock 30K
good relief to my mortgage and dine-outs, but no way to reach financial freedom in this corp.
WTF man do you have a $1k a day heroin habit?? How do you not reach financial freedom making that much money? I can only assume you've piled on more debt than you should have which isn't the companies fault.
Why do your review scores surprise you, Microsoft people? I mean, you have a sweaty shouter as a CEO, and a ratty COO whose only claim to fame is his ability to get to the vomit on aisle 14 quicker than anyone else at WalMart. Sheesh! But wait, I forgot the inventor of the PC, BillG. The only man in history to have missed the Internet, mobile, tablets, Search and industrial design class ... what else can I say? Except, goodnight Gracie.
The necessity for folks to post their level, bonus, etc. is much less now that the new review model specifies what you get in terms of stock and bonus at each level. Anyone that got a 1,2, or 3 is safe this year, and in my opinion, got paid very well. 4's and 5's however are the walking dead. Only a few will find their way out of these buckets in the coming years. When leadership says "4 is ok" you should view that statement as ridiculous on the face of it. 5's get fired this year. That leaves 4's who are the next 5's, unless they come after the 3's (which will happen 3's, so watch out!). Folks that were U/10 last year and got a 5 this year found themselves terminated at the review. Other 5's have a little time but in many orgs it means almost certain termination no matter what your manager tells you. Posts that say we have crushed the morale of 20% of the company are quite correct. In previous years it was only 10% or less. With over 1000 comments here on mini, HR has clearly struck a nerve with this new review model. Even if you survived in this review you have to live knowing that 1 out of 5 on your team (on average)got crushed this year and is going to get crushed in FY12. This toxic environment must be put to a stop if Microsoft is to thrive in the next decade. I would urge all mini-readers to protest loudly, even if you survived this year, about the devastating impacts this model will have on the future of Microsoft. The failures we have experienced in our lost decade cannot be traced to some amorphous 20% 'bottom' of the company. The problems we have had are caused by senior leadership decisions and management decisions, not by the teams of workers that help carry their strategies out. To have let mobile phones and tablets get away from us was painful enough. This new review model is the stake that will kill any chance of us succeeding in regaining Microsoft's previous glory. I urge every employee to do everything within their power to protest the 20% 4/5 philosophy and to demand that it be changed. No doubt it is risky as you will be viewed as problem child unless thousands join us in the cause, but you can't love Microsoft and turn your eyes away from this travesty. We must say loudly and clearly this review model with 20% of the company being 4's and 5's is INSANE.
L61.
Got a good review. I searched for L61 on all pages; one person claimed a smaller base salary on here and most claimed quite a bit more.
What frustrates me is that I was promoted last year, so I got 8% R&D rather than 12%. My R&D + merit wasn't 12%. I do get slightly higher stock to cash, and my base was higher, but any way I slice it I'd be better off if my promotion were this year rather than last year.
Two exceptions:
1. If I leave the company soon (because I got the cash sooner).
2. If it means I get promoted to the next level sooner.
That second exception is hard to find comforting until I actually do get promoted to the new 62 (with the much lower stock compensation).
L63
Bucket - 3
Merit - 1.7%
R&D - 5%
Stock2$$$ - 3.4%
Bonus - 10% BES
Stock - 100% (~17K)
Know lots of folks around here who got a 3 as well and got very similar numbers.
Same level, same bucket and almost exactly the same numbers. Was on a 5-year E/20 streak and now this. It's either my fault or its the new review system. I think I know what the best way to find out is.
Should have been a 2. curved down to a 3. Landed everything in commitments and more. Not sure I want to leave, but I'm going to stick my head up and look around.
L62
Bucket 5
Merit 0
Bonus 0
Stock 0
Trending towards 2 at midyear, no conversations warning me I was off track. Had a reorg 3mo before calibration, new boss, bumpy for a few weeks then solid. In as a 3, out as a 5. Not on a performance plan as the review stated I delivered outstanding work and people love collaborating with me, just my peers were better. Plus a bunch of overblown BS to justify the low score layered on top.
I shared this review score with one of my trusted peers who has worked with me daily for over a year and after she realized I wasn't joking her jaw literally dropped open, she was as shocked and upset as I was.
Key takeaways.
It is critical that there is NOTHING bad to say about you in any way, shape or form. "How" does not reflect teamwork skills. It reflects whether you made even a single person annoyed or upset, whether you complained no matter how justified, etc. This negative "how" will also amplify when it gets higher as they do not spend more than a few minutes on any one person. You get turned into a tagline.
Your manager then will have to turn and justify this BS by digging up as much as they can. Which is a lot like running for political office. Take out of context, twist, etc.
If your manager is human, they will eventually be honest when you point out with documented facts that the feedback can't be true and admit it is BS.
Also, much of your score relates to how good your upper levels play the game. Pay attention very closely to teams who see a lot of churn of solid performers in the next few weeks/months. It's safe to assume if this happens, they got hosed, and if they all did it is because a) they were on an area of the business that underperformed and thus regardless of their own individual contribution needed to take on higher numbers of 4/5s, or b) their bosses suck at playing hardball in calibration like their peers are. Either way, avoid that team.
To point B, there is a good chance that if you are a manager who thoughtfully and accurately assesses people and puts them in where they should end up, you are screwing them. If you know you have sharks in your management peer group who inflate scores, you need to also and then play the justification game.
Pay attention to promotion rates in the group. If your peers have been sitting in band because your group doesn't promote and they are solid and well liked, you are lower than them, period.
This is beyond sad to type. A system like this is not sustainable. It is hubris of epic proportions to scarlet letter great performers because hey, if they leave, there's hundreds of other applicants, and maybe you will hit the lottery with the new guy. Then while everyone left is running scared and doing brown bags and status emails and networking, google and apple and anywhere else with vision and ability to rate according to performance will continue to thrive while this place crumbles.
As an ex-Softie....reality check. The work product from the company is below par, as employees none of you have any industry forming opinions...
As a recent hire with many many years of experience in small companies and open source development, I have to say the engineering/testing/etc. standards I've seen at MS are abysmal. I've only worked with 3 or 4 groups, so I suppose I could just be unlucky, but I'm constantly amazed at how low the bar is for product quality.
- “Adding a+b+c gives 80%, and the c+d 20%. All that together boils down to the 80/20 rule, right?”
Kind of … well, but no. The 80/20 rule says 80% of your results (or profit) come from 20% of your effort (or people).
It might well be true that 20% of people drive 80% of the results at Microsoft, as the 80/20 rule would suggest. And yes, that’s the theory behind giving large rewards to people who get the 1 score. But I assure you that the 20% of people driving the most results at Microsoft is not the same group of people as the 20% who got 1 scores. Not even close. The 20% of people who are most visible or most likely to send random e-mail status reports about their work is hardly the same group as the 20% who get the most actual results done. It is just not even close.
- “Microsoft is all screwed up Company, people's fate/review is in your managers hands.”
If only. Your fate is slightly affected by your manager’s hands. Your fate is in your skip-skip-level’s hands and you will never, ever know what he or she was thinking, nor will your manager. The system of tiers in calibration prevents not also transparency but, incredibly, it also prevents understanding your performance. It would be funny if it weren’t true but it is true: the performance system as a whole actually makes it harder for you to understand how you performed over the last year, if you could have done anything differently, or if you can do anything differently next year that might, even *might*, make turn the dial.
- “My question was what do I have to do to get a 1 or 2 (inline with previous reviews). Answer "keep doing what you're doing". I was speechless, it's all BS.”
Yep. I’ve heard the same comment many times from friends around the company. That must be in the review-giving training.
Not eligible for R&D increase and lost out on promo as well due to minimum length in level restriction (sigh!) even though I think this was my best year at MS so far in terms of delivering business value.
What are these length in level restrictions?
I feel bad for people. It's not hard, really. In fact, it's kind of easy.
Ask for more visible projects. Ask your manager to try to get you on that v-team because it is very visible. Hell, put it in your commitments: "I will ask my manager every other week for a more visible project. I will give a brownbag about that project and ignore the rest of my work. I will ask my GM's business manager to feature my project at the next all-hands. I will write a paragraph about my project for the next group newsletter. I will make a slide about my project and send it to my PUM so they can put it in their business review deck. I will ask my friends to nominate me for whatever-of-the-quarter, and I will return the favor for them. I will swing by my director's office on Tuesday and casually ask if they have time for lunch on Friday, and I will follow up with their admin on timing because god forbid my director could work Outlook by himself. At lunch I will wear a bright shirt and smile and talk enthusiastically about my project, and ask about my director's hobbies outside of work, and about his children."
None of this has anything at all to do with working on the right stuff, or doing it well, or building desirable products, or connecting with customers, or achieving results for shareholders. (You don't even have to do anything noteworthy on the project, except help publicize it.)
But it is how you get a 1, if that's what you're after.
(If while doing that nonsense you can *also* manage to build desirable product and build shareholder value, well that's a nice internal warm-fuzzy for you, but it won't affect your score or reward, and it would mean working 60-hour weeks because you do your politicking as a day job.)
"Moral: if you get stuck with a bad reorg, LEAVE IMMEDIATELY if you want to stay in the company. Do not try to improve things in your current situation. Do not wait around for your next review because you believe you kicked ass and will be rewarded well for it. This only gives them time to create a misleading impression of you that will impair your ability to function effectively within MSFT."
Very true. Wish there is karma so that those people who destroyed career and reputation with lies will be paid back in double.
If we are so good, review people every quarter, just like Facebook, the fucking leads and managers can spend all year writing lies.
College grads, if you are good, don't join Microsoft. Ask yourself, why would you want to join MS? A chance to change the world?
B27 will empty out sooner than most think.
We just hire more ex-interns to fill up the offices and eventually force 20% of them to think they are worthless?
Or, H1 and B1 visa holders who can't move around and have to take the BS?
I like the technology and joined the company---had two competing offers from two different Microsoft groups, "Promoted" into Windows, and bumped into the shitty/lazy lead, screw him. Tell me there is karma!
HR is useless, now PC sales will grow only 3.5% this year. With Androids and Chrome coming on strong into 2012, it's time to wipe out those Windows PM principal deadwood in B27 now. 2012 will be ugly, will consumer buy W8 tablets that feel and weigh like a brick?
Moral: if you get stuck with a bad reorg, LEAVE IMMEDIATELY if you want to stay in the company. Do not try to improve things in your current situation. Do not wait around for your next review because you believe you kicked ass and will be rewarded well for it. This only gives them time to create a misleading impression of you that will impair your ability to function effectively within MSFT.
+1
Similiar story here. String of good reviews / promos. Then a reorg later, slammed with a bad review out of nowhere. Worked hard only to get an ok review the following year. Should have left IMMEDIATELY. Instead, got another bad review the next year.
I finally realized that Microsoft has become a place where it's not performance, but politics, favoritism and backstabbing that largely determines your rating and career. Instead of creating awesome products that delight customers, folks are now focused on attaining the CSPs for the next level by any means possible. Ballmer and Brummel have created a brutal cutthroat environment where most of the "successful" folks are incompetent snakes in disguise, only surviving and thriving by selling the honest folks down the river at the first opportunity.
The review system they've created will NOT allow the company to execute successfully. Yes, every once in a while there will be some long overdue success, like Xbox, and perhaps Windows 8 will temporarily stem the tide that is threatening to drown Microsoft in obsolescence. But Microsoft will NEVER prosper again as long as this leadership team is at the helm.
Some advice: YOU get to pick your manager, and the org. Don't let anyone else pick it for you. If your manager or org get picked for you, be very very careful. Ask a lot of questions, be very suspicious of the new manager and org. If you have any doubts about either, LEAVE IMMEDIATELY. Else it is career suicide.
I heard today that the Public Sector team got his hard today (9/7). Have not been able to confirm. Anyone know anything about this?
Whoever wrote the below text, you should be the HR president and CEO, we need someone like you:
"The fact is that all the 4s and 5s that leave over the next few months will be labeled "good attrition", and rationalized away at all levels and by HR. It is clear now that Microsoft is run by idiots - technically, they may have been brilliant in days gone by, but as managers, they are utterly clueless. While retaining talent and managing out underperformers sounds good in theory, what actually happens is not even close.
The fact is that Microsoft's managers have always been picked following the same old formula - ask outperforming ICs to take on a manager role, send them to management training, and call it good. Microsoft ranks are now filled with these incompetent people managers who have hired many more such managers. Add to this the stack ranking and the forced curve that has evolved ruthless and political backstabbing managers, and you have a review system that runs far from its goals.
The only folks who make it through to Senior or Principal either are one of the lucky few who have truly good managers, or who are brilliant enough to make it through despite bad managers. Unfortunately many more talented brilliant folks are falling by the wayside, and leaving after getting a bad review, while we furiously hire replacements from college and industry and desperately work their asses off so we can deliver on our short term goals.
The big picture however is that the folks who end up working at Microsoft are either a) old timers who had good managers and made it to Principal or Partner (I'm a Principal ex-manager IC myself), b) incompetent and/or political/corrupt managers, c) a few brilliant folks who stay because they're still loyal, or d) new-ish hires who think getting anything but a 1 or a 2 doesn't apply to them (even though it inevitably will, either before or soon after reaching the Senior band).
In addition, a large majority of folks quitting Microsoft leave with the after taste of a bad (usually unfair) review in their mouths. I'd wager that these folks, having a powerful combined influence in the tech industry and beyond, are turning hearts and minds away from Microsoft and its products. Over time, this will only get worse, since the ranks of ex-MSFT'ies will only grow.
This is a problem with deep roots, and requires radical solutions.
Fire Ballmer, Brummel, and all managers in the SLT who have low MS Poll scores. Hire or promote an engineer to run the company, for god's sake.
Give all managers who have low WHI scores one year to fix them, or go back to being ICs. And by low WHI scores I mean in an absolute sense, not relative to the rest of Microsoft.
Get rid of the latest review system, including the forced curve. Implement a new review system where there is no review score. The review score is well intended, but it doesn't work in the real world, at least not without impacting morale, and ultimately the company's long term success. 4/5 (and the A/U 10 before that) is a recipe for disaster (if you want to let someone go for not doing their job, do that without using a review score, which impacts retained employees for god's sake). *Loosely* stack rank each year's performance and pay the employee based on that. Their compa ratio already tells you where they are relative to their level, and that's all you need to know to promote them. "
Bucket 3
L64 Field Sales
Merit $3,000
Stock to Base $1,500
New Base $120,000
Bonus $38,000
Stock $25,000
I had a really hard time sitting through the review. So tired of the "Microsoft speak from management. Lots of opportunities in the market right now to make much more.
"with 20% of the company being 4's and 5's is INSANE."
And most group would not want 3's, even though they can interview, once you interviewed, it increases your chance of being 4 or 5 in 2012.
So, 60% of the company are zambies.
Many deserved to be 1's and 2's. But those who are back stabbers, your turn will come, either inside or outside of Microsoft----the world even things out eventually.
"Being a 65 is brutal. You're calibrated against 66s and 67s many with a decade in this calibration.
this is incorrect.
65 & 66 is a separate band from 67, hence they're calibrated separately."
That's what it appeared like when they announced the new plan in spring. L67 after all has a different compesation schedule. However, in my annual review I was told L65s were in the same calibration as L67s.
I'm open to hearing this was a bare faced lie. Anyone know?
Being a 65 is brutal. You're calibrated against 66s and 67s many with a decade in this calibration. Getting a 4 or 5 is a 50-50 proposition unless you're someone's protégé. Next year with senior band going to 150% most 65s will be compensated much less than their 64 counterparts with similar performance.
With this in mind I recently recommended that a friend ask for a demotion.
OK, new 65 here and worries about this. Could you explain the 150%? Thanks!
Next year level 63/64 is getting higher bonus targets. If you are a high performing 63/64 you can already get higher rewards than a middle-tier level 65. Next year this will become even more likely.
65 is sort of a gut-check level because your review score is guaranteed to drop, your rewards will drop slightly, and you have to spend a couple years thinking about the gobs of money you COULD BE making if you were only one level higher. At least you get a title change.
"Next year with senior band going to 150% most 65s will be compensated much less than their 64 counterparts with similar performance."
"OK, new 65 here and worries about this. Could you explain the 150%? Thanks!"
Next year senior band bonus and stock rises to %150 of what it is today. This year a L65 who receives a 4 gets the same % compensation as a L64 who gets a 3. Next year it changes, you're better off as a L64 with a 3 than a L65 with a 4. Considering the brutal competition in the Princpal band in many orgs, you may be better off not being promoted. Don't count on HR figuring out the glitch.
What credentials does LisaB have? Has she ever done anything spectacularly successful which a supposed top-notch company like Microsoft should demand? Also, what SteveB has done that is spectacularly successful as a CEO of a supposed top-notch company like Microsoft should demand? Both of these people should leave already! They made Microsoft such a mediocre company that I do not see it will last very long now.
The "how" vs. "what" was accomplished switch: Also known as "bait and switch" in that it's crappy to change the rules near the end of the year-long race, and only a few knew the new rules. If "how" actually meant that we don't need to leave a trail of bodies to get something done, I would agree with it. If "what" doesn't matter much anymore, then why do we concern ourselves with commitments at all? It's like a bunch of grade-school kids made up the review process after reading about fraternities. Seriously, what gets done is vitally important, and "how" is a nice to have. And if "how" was truly important, it would be an evaluation of who removed impediments to processes instead of lobbing roadblocks in front of people going full speed, a sense of collaboration, a willingness to question and constantly evaluate without being a complete jerk, but with a freedom to ask hard questions and try to get to the truth of the matter, and accomplish something of substance.
+1
Best post in a while.
@Complaining to HR will get you a 5 and a personal escort from security out of the building.
OPEN DOOR POLICY :)
Thanks for the late night laugh! That is quite funny and not far from the truth in my case.
Reality is sometimes more boring than that. It will get you next year's equivalent of a "trending to 5" in the mycd and quite annoying constructive termination tactics aimed your way.
From my recollection the pre-2006 curve was as follows (sales management role): 35% were >3.5s, 45% were 3.5s, and 25% were 3.0 (_OR_ <3.0)), BUT the big difference there was a 3.0 was "You're doing your job", "Achieved", "maybe you could improve in a few areas" if that, and that was the lowest score a manager MUST assign. Managers weren't forced to give 2.5s or lower, or provide certain "HR approved" language, if the manager thought everyone on the team was at least "doing their job". Three-O's weren't seen as losers, lepers, or frozen in place until they left the Company.
Though there were still politics, people all worked to get the best scores, not throw each other under the bus to avoid the low scores like rats racing off a sinking ship... or is it?
+1
Concur, although I think you mean pre-2000 (not pre-2006). I was in a dev role back then, and there was no loser label attached to 3.0 in dev/test/PM either back then.
Of course in pre-2000 we had Bill for our CEO, not this ape. Back then, we couldn't hire enough good folks, and there was no need to let anyone go, since they were nearly all good.
Now we're not adding as many heads each year, and our leadership is paranoid that we're losing the 1+ college hires to the competition. We're not confident we can succeed by just focusing on growing our existing contributors and leaders. So the management geniuses that are Ballmer and Brummel and their cohorts have put in place successive new review systems that have as their misguided goal the purging of enough heads each year to create room for the cheap new college hires.
The leper system of 4s and 5s will succeed in purging all right, but not the bottom 20%, since the rating system is not very accurate or fair. The morale of most 3s will now go down the toilet as well, and many 3s who should have been 2s or 1s will leave, either pissed off or because they're now worried they're headed to 4s or 5s.
Overall the system will likely create underperformance of 60 - 80% of the employees, by trying to motivate with a stick instead of a carrot.
In the short-term, the system should succeed in retaining the 1s and 2s that delude themselves into thinking they will never be 4s or 5s, and our SLT and HR will pat themselves on the back. But once those 1s and 2s are handed their first 3, they will also suffer in morale and performance. The fact that such a system creates underperformance and cann't sustain itself escapes our management geniuses.
But then, what else can we expect of the same SLT that has bungled things and failed in so many other ways in the marketplace in the post-2000 era?
L61->L62 and the new base is just slightly over 100k... didn't realize I was so underpaid...now I'm upset :(
I have read 992 comments, and I am pondering what a good compensation system SHOULD accomplish:
- Reward excellent and good work
(etc.)
Of course if you do particularly good work it's nice to get an attaboy and maybe some extra cash for it but I can't help but think that Microsoft's culture is so f'ed up because there's such a "class hierarchy" as a result of the review system--as you climb the ladder, you make SO MUCH more money that OF COURSE most people will spend all their time trying to game the system and playing politics so they can get to the next level. And doing good engineering and making good products takes a back seat.
L66 R&D, no promo
Bucket: 1+
Merit: ~$8K
No R&D thing at L66
Stock: 225% = ~165K sh
Bonus: north of 70K
New base pay: north of 190K
Yes, it's a high score and a lot of money. It's also competitive with the market, and I work my butt off, drive myself and my team hard, and try to have fun and be nice while doing it.
I was hoping for a 2, would have been ok with a 3, and pleasantly surprised with the 1+. With that said, I've had a long history of pretty good reviews and a steady career progression, but I'm always expecting lower (worse) than I end up getting.
Words of semi-wisdom -
1) remember it's a curve.
2) your manager matters a lot.get the right dialogue going, and get feedback.
3) observe the skills/styles that are successful and look deeper at the root cause - don't model the symptoms, model the source (and even then, don't lose yourself in the process)
Re: "Very upset with my review delivery. Based out of India GTSC, which is one big political Org. No matter what you do, unless your manager and his peer group in the calibration like you, all your efforts are useless"
Couldn't agree with you more mate, it's like a popularilty contest here. The toxic culture is getting to me too....
let me remind you again that here at Microsoft we don't hire losers >>>
Bullshit. Try explaining EXACTLY what most of the partners have actually contributed to the company?
Start with Roz Ho and Walid Abu-Hadba. Go for it. I dare you.
Sorry to be the one to say this, but yea, under Ballmer, you not only hire them, you retain them, promote them and just and coddle the shit out of them - and the fastest way to get unquestioned tenure, is to do something so bad that legal has to scramble to cover it up.
I'd been around about ten years when the wind changed and I ended up on a new team. Life under Bill wasn't always nice - it was often a fight - but it was a fight you could have and it always made sense.
In my new job, I was supposed to do all the hiring but all of a sudden there was this new , "very diverse", "experienced senior" guy - I looked in his office, saw one of every trophy the company knows how to make, and knew something was horribly, horribly wrong.
The real world simply doesn't work that way.
I rigged an interview. The response was "this idiot does not know anything, about anything" - which proved to be completely true, to a degree I could not have previously believed existed. He could not find his own ass with both hands and a flashlight.
And he knew it. The scariest words on earth are "I was the hiring VP's college room-mate" ... you know, right then, that you're being threatened and you're just completely f*cked. Holy crap. Unbelievable. 30 people, 3 years, millions of dollars flushed straight into people's pockets ... actually accomplishing anything was never anywhere in plan.
So, if you think you're going to be fired anyway, make up a set of slides that say you've just made the company a billion dollars. Say you've penetrated the internet jelly-bean market or struck oil in Seattle - it won't be any more ridiculous than the crap I saw get approved by Mr. Monkey-Dance-CEO-guy.
My favorite 2000's term is "Powerpoint Compiler".
Welcome to Steve & Lisa's Microsoft, where no one knows if things are even real or not ... AND NO ONE CARES.
But wait, I forgot the inventor of the PC, BillG. The only man in history to have missed the Internet, mobile, tablets, Search and industrial design class ...
That's actually an interesting observation. In contrast to Ballmer, you've got to give credit to BillG for realizing he'd missed the internet (circa 1996) and forcing the company to do an about-face and nail it. The glossary/help/manuals for the original version of Windows95 defined "URL" or ".html" as "Netscape links" (or something like that.) Just a few years later Netscape had IE's boot on its throat.
I always assumed that it was Netscape's weakness and Windows market momentum that allowed that retroactive, high-speed course correction. But maybe it was BillG after all. Somebody who can go in there and say, "I personally made a big mistake, but we are going to correct it now before we get further behind" and make it happen.
Obviously the game-board's changed significantly, but you can really see Ballmer's intense, fierce, glaring total stupidity as you see him react to the same set of conditions so badly. BillG never went on TV to dismiss Netscape and the Internet with a horse laugh.
Talking to many peers post review, a few trends emerge:
Your commitments are considered, but rank rules. A 2, 3, 4, etc., doesn’t reflect your performance, it’s about how many peers were in your ranking pool. A percentage of that pool end up on each end no matter what how well they performed against goals.
The review no longer feels like a pay for performance system anymore at all. It feels like a pass or fail. That’s the way everyone I talk to feels this year. Some are in detention.
A lot of senior employees are getting low review scores as if to send a message- we can pay someone less to do your job and your base salary is your reward. That is how it is being interpreted.
At the 65+ band review becomes a competitive mess. They are ranking several upper levels together instead of similar job functions. There is little incentive to collaborate since this entire group is expected to all be “leaders” and “owners”, leaving little room for contributors unless you can get the sponsorship and attention of senior management.
Feels like HR is in cost efficacy mode to trim fat by reducing incentives and payouts. The new review system is not a better thing. We were told how it would simplify and be an improvement. It is not. Very few people walked away from their review feeling better than they did last year.
I have many peers who love this company and feel violated of their contribution and recognition. It’s not about the money, rather, to give your all for a year to be blindsided with a rating that is clearly disconnected from performance against the commitments they were asked to hit.
MS was founded on small empowered teams. It feels like a machine now that is chasing growth and numbers above everything else. What makes Microsoft great, “The People!” Remember that at every meeting for years and years? I dare Steve to say that during the company meeting this year.
Before you blame your manager, remember the process was pushed down on them. It sucks to have to rank your team and compete with everyone else doing the same thing.
Senior management at MS needs to go. It’s not about moving the P&L numbers up and down- it’s about inspiring vision and taking some risk. Get that right- make it priority- and numbers take care of themselves.
A little bit over a year and very disappointed. I find the corporate culture very ugly. "Dog eat Dog" is rampant and seems highly rewarded. Nobody can be trusted.
L63
Bucket - 3
Merit - 2.5%
Stock2$$$ - $4k
Bonus - 10% BES
Stock - 100%
I quit starting October. Here is the reason: buckets 4,5 go now. Bucket 3 goes after steveb is dismissed and Microsoft is carved up by new owners. Nobody needs engineers in holding company. Don't look at IBM, look at SCO and Novell. Good luck, everybody.
In football, for example, someone throws the ball, someone catches the ball, people run really fast to get somewhere specific, some big guys block the people from the other town when they try to knock you down, they even squish them later at the bottom of a pile...
If you cannot make to a "coach level" in two years, or a "coach of a coach" in five, or a "team manager" what kind of crappy player are you? We don't want you. We don't care if the team wins anything, in fact, how the team performs is irrelevant.
Reminder that stock grants are known in the world as long-term compensation, and it's supposed to be handcuffs that will cause you to stay, not laugh at how small it is and wonder whether you will be here for the 5 years it takes to collect it.
Couldn't have stated it better myself.
"People with 3s should stop complaining--you got 100% of target--what is there to be upset about?? Jeez!"
Dude, that's just MSFT HR-speak, this total nonsense that if you get half of what you could have, that you hit the target for your job - in other places "100%" means real 100% (as in all), 100% of what is possible for your position. So if I have a job with a range that says my possible bonus is 0-20%, then MY target is the full bonus, which is 20%. I don't really give a crap that there is this fake HR target of some midpoint of the bonus amounts, or that anyone might think the low end of the bonus scale is for anyone but those who didn't do their job. People who have worked elsewhere have had bonus structures that had a low and a high end, just like here, but if you were really good at your job you got the top amount, not some midpoint, which was always for the average folks. And not that you care when if you've been here a while, but new industry hires with expertise and all that accept their offer with the normal real-world expectation that they will hit the high end of the bonus range, because that's how other places do it, and it's how they have been valued for what they are, and MSFT went out hunting for them and recruited them to come here. The long-term compensation at MSFT is pretty low for professionals, which is weird. Past experience elsewhere was 3.8 times annually of the stock value of midpoint at MSFT.
Maybe would be interesting to know how many ICs (if any) from these ranks have been ultimately fired or resigned and why:
- Chairman Award;
- Circle of Excellence Award;
- Key people / HiPo / Bench
Thursday, September 08, 2011 7:24:00 PM
"We must say loudly and clearly this review model with 20% of the company being 4's and 5's is INSANE."
Back when this whole economic recession started, I heard a rumor about Microsoft that I can neither confirm or deny but think I might share here. It goes something like this:
Steve Ballmer decided that it was a good time to let go of 15% of the company. He wanted to do one massive layoff to resize the company. The details of this reached a certain US Senator from Washington that was NEVER in the technology industry. Basically, the US Senator objected to the plan and threatened to ensure that the US Government would continue to make life a living hell for the software company in Redmond. Mr. Ballmer, knowing that she had that power, backed off the plan and only laid off 1,500 people in the first ever layoff at Microsoft.
I just have to wonder if Mr Ballmer isn't getting his way in the end.
layoffs, layoffs, layoffs..
Any news on mass layoffs?
L63
Bucket - 3
Merit - 2.5%
R&D - NA
Stock Tx - $4000
Bonus - 10% BES
Stock - 100% (~17K)
I see this is very similar to others in same level, same bucket. Worked out very similar to last year in fact.
In level 2.5 years, no promo means that I am moving toward the "you aren't growing" world, so it might be time to move before unable to. Review text was good- sounded more like a 2. Happy to have a job, etc. just getting concerned that I am trending to a "no growth time to manage out" page of the HR book.
L62 --> L63 promo (PM)
merit 5.25%
promo 5 %
R&D 5%
stock to pay 7k
new base pay 132k
bonus 24.3 k (22.5 %)
rating 1 (or 1+ based on numbers)
stock award 225 %
L62, first year in Senior band
Office
No promo
No R&D bonus
Bucket: 3
Merit:2.55%
Stock-to-Salary: $7K
Bonus:10%
Stock:100%
New Base: $117k
---
Senior starts at 63 buddy.
Senior starts at L62 for tech writers...
Even if you think your job is secure, it’s wise to ensure that your organization considers you a keeper. Here are some signs that you may be considered expendable if job cuts are in the offing:
Your boss is making less eye contact with you than usual.
You have less face-to-face time with your manager.
You are included in fewer meetings.
You received an unexpectedly poor performance review.
You have been told your skills or knowledge are outdated.
Your workload or responsibilities have been reduced.
Your co-workers know more about what’s going on than you do.
E-mails you send suddenly don’t receive replies.
Cutbacks in your department have been more severe than others.
Source: OI Partners-Feldman Daxon Partners Inc.
I am now planning to work at the bucket level I have been assigned, and work and aspire to the next level. Shame the assigned level was a 4. Realistically I was probably only a 3 overall this year, despite many well recognised successes and was planning to get back in the groove and work towards a solid 2 and a promo.
But now it looks like I will need to really excel to just get a 3 next year, and I have to ask myself if its worth it. Answer - no, might as well just coast and work just hard enough to maintain my 4. Luckily (for MS) I care more about my reputation with peers world-wide than my bucket and so will continue to excell where I can, despite not being formally recognised.
L59->L60
Bucket: 1 :)
Merit: 5.25%
Promo: 10%
R&D: 12%
Stock to base: $1,500
New base: 103k
Am I the last one to get the #s in MS??
Being an ass kisser is not required (I'm surely not). Got fucked on my review last year, also, so it's possible to turn things around in a year, so don't lose faith.
What did I do?
Worked my ass off. Made sure work was scoped right, measurable, and used "is this the right thing for the company as my guide".
As someone who has been screwed in reviews before, I commend you for the success.
However, I'm confused. You sound like you don't believe you deserved the poor review from last year. That implies that you don't feel that merit was tied to your review last year.
Yet your description for your good review this year seemed all about working-really-hard and sounded like you were strongly associating merit with result.
More simply put, if the reason for your good review this year was a lot of hard work, it sounds like you're saying that you didn't do that work the year before. If the hard work this year justified the good review, then why wouldn't the lack of it the year before justify a bad review?
I'm not attempting to attack you - but you either didn't necessarily deserve both the bad review and the good review, or you deserved both.
I'd like to understand something:
The blog posts here over the past few years always brought up people who were upset with their reviews. Many were shocked, angry.
This year, the number seems significantly higher. The number of posts here from people who say things like "2 years of E/20s and suddenly a 5!" seem odd. Is this purely due to the extra 10% of people being thrown into the meat grinder, or the brackets being clearer?
For comparison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
shows how fortunate all of us are.
You're correct. However, compare any US citizen making anywhere above the US Poverty level to factory workers elsewhere in the world. All of those people are shockingly fortunate.
Someone working in a Chinese factory today making a fraction of what a US Factory worker makes is head and shoulders above people in areas of the world that lack economic clout. There are many African nations where most would dream of a sweatshop job and its related pay.
My point is that this is a relative issue and always will be. Irrespective of your income, there will always (well, aside from the handful of mega-billionaires out there) be those who enjoy lifestyles significantly better than you, and those who dream of a lifestyle only a fraction as good as your own.
If relating your own situation to those worse off than you leaves you psychologically better off, kudos to you.
Groupon employees just filed a class-action lawsuit against Groupon: http://paidcontent.org/article/419-more-bad-news-for-groupon-sales-team-files-class-action-suit/
Let's do it. I am in if some employee files a class action lawsuit against Microsoft.
Need some advice from the ex-MSFT folks out there.
If I quit Microsoft, will my future employer, be it Google or Amazon, ask for my past review scores? I assume they can get my current annual pay directly from Microsoft, but do they normally ask interviewees for anything else they can't get themselves?
I'm an L63 dev and got a 5 out of nowhere after a reorg (was expecting a 3). New manager says he'll work with me to get me back on track, but I don't see why I should start with this undeserved handicap.
Microsoft's strategy seems to be to get rid of the 5s, after two-in-a-row, then go after the 4s, and so on. If the review system wasn't so broken, I'd have stayed and fought, but I don't see the point. I'd rather go someplace else where the company leadership has vision, and doesn't try to compensate for their screw ups by making scapegoats out of the rank-and-file.
MSFT Employees: How hard is it to transfer internally to a position that is 1 level above your current level?
Wow, there's a legitimate question that almost got lost amid the bloodletting. If you are interested in the job by all means go for it. Nothing ventured, nothing gained and all that. I was L63 before leaving MS (best decision ever, BTW), but while I was still in the maw of the beast I had many informationals for jobs that were posted anywhere from L62 to L65 and was never discouraged from applying. You won't get promoted/demoted by changing teams except in rare circumstances.
Be prepared to be turned down I guess, but I'd take that as a sign of a short sighted manager or an extremely desirable position. If you have the right fit, pasison, and skill a good manager, will be happy to have you and push you to grow no matter where you start from. Unfortunately ... finding a good manager is getting harder.
I urge every employee to do everything within their power to protest the 20% 4/5 philosophy and to demand that it be changed.
It'd be interesting to see what would happen if Microsoft employees went down the "velvet revolution" road. Mr Ballmer might ruthlessly crush it, or he might end up swinging from a lamp post (metaphorically speaking). What if all concerned workers went on strike? Or perhaps all the 5s, or 4s and 5s? After all, 20% of the company who have been branded as either "unfit for MS" or "marginally fit for MS" have very little to lose, do they?
I'm a former Apple employee who left because of a dickhead manager who dinged me in my review despite my being far and away, and proveably the most productive developer on his team. My options were vested, and my strike price was about 1/10 of the share price at the time I left. I jumped ship and got involved in a startup.
I was there for three and a half years, the first two and a half with a great manager, and the last year with the dickhead. Although I left in anger, I could see that the dickhead was very rare, and as it happens, since my departure, he's had more attrition in his group than any other manager I've ever heard of at Apple. (Close to 100% annually.)
The startup didn't work out as I had hoped, and I'm back at Apple now as a contractor for the second time (last time was for about six months last year).
My customer this time around is a former Microsoft director (not sure what rank that is by your system, he had a total of about a hundred developers reporting to him), and he's told me that he was amazed at how much Apple managers help each other, lending engineers to other teams or departments, sending their people out to help other teams get their heads around their code that other groups are using.
Apple is also a place where people go from development to management and back again, with no stigma attached. It's very common for someone who was running a major project to decide to go be a developer again to keep up their coding skills.
Apple managers are also valued in large part by how much the people reporting to them improve their skills. When someone finishes up a major shipping milestone, they often look around for another group to transfer to, and this is encouraged. Apple does not promote empire-building.
Those of you who are feeling demoralized at Microsoft should have a look at jobs.apple.com, and look for things there that interest you. It's well known at Apple that MS still has a huge collection of world-class engineering talent, and even if your butthead manager at Microsoft says you suck, well, we know how to evaluate coding skills ourselves, so we're not going to be relying on his opinion.
Think about it.
L63
Bucket: 4
Merit: 1.15%
Promo: 2.5%
Bonus: $7K
Stock: $8K
After 15 years with MS this is my first review lower than 3. I'm still puzzled and have no idea why, as nothing has changed other than my manager (yet again). What a pain to work here... MS became a bureaucratic company without vision and stock certainly reflects that. I think I'll be taking my severance package and looking elsewhere.
There are now more than 1K+ comments in this post. People said things in a better way than I could about how our performance review structure is not serious and how it seems like there is nothing we can do to change this. The answer is that there is a lot we can do.
And it starts with organization. One person can't fight this battle, not even a dozen, but I believe we have a lot more than a few thousand people that would want to change the current system.
Look at what happened/is happening around the world (Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, etc.): ordinary people, empowered with tools of communication (aka social media), transforming whole governments.
If they can change a country, we can change a company.
Do you believe Microsoft has a chance to transform the world for good?
Do you believe we will only be able to do that if we start to give people the fair treatment they deserve?
Do you want to be one of the people that helped put this company back on track?
If you do, just reply with "yes, I do"
Let's truly create the One Microsoft we all want. *We* are this company. All of us.
--V
"The power of the people is much stronger than the people in power"
http://www.ted.com/talks/wael_ghonim_inside_the_egyptian_revolution.html
I doubt that there is a completely 'fair' review system on the planet. That said I agree with the poster who noted that under the 'old' model, that is before KT arrived, there was no requirement to issue x% 2.5 (underperformed). There WAS a requirement that around 20% get a 3.0 (Achieved).
I managed a team of about 35 in MCS, and developed a spreadsheet that generated the review score based on 3 key dimensions - utilization, customer sat and personal growth (certs, stretch assignments etc.). I shared this information with the team, hence no surprises or awkward discussions about the assigned score.
Note I am not claiming this was a perfect system or entirely free of bias, just that it was a lot fairer and more transparent than anything else I saw while at MS.
As someone else pointed out, just because someone is a great IC does not necessarily make her/him a good manager. The current system takes great ICs and turns them into mediocre managers. And this cannot be fixed just thru training. Does the individual genuinely want to coach? Are they empathetic? Is the success of others more important than personal success? Unless the answer to these 3 questions is yes, making this person a manager will make employees and the manager miserable.
@layoffs, layoffs, layoffs..
Any news on mass layoffs?
please consider me for layoff.
suggestion to people 3 or above, quit before you get a bad rating.
it is always good to leave any company with a good note.
How long can an IC stay at the same level (for example level 62 SDET II)? Is it looked down upon if someone is at the same level but performing well at the level?
For what it's worth, 3 in 61 in level for probably 4 years with its horizon yet another year away. I don't get it. I improved coding standards across the org, got my whole team to work together for the first time, and introduced new technologies from w8 that nobody else knew of. That's what they want, isn't it? Even introduced new scenarios to orgs outside our org.
Others don't seem to have this problem, can get promotions while breaking the build, being late on deliverables, creating roadblocks for others.
Geez, it's just a 62 I want dammit. Not partner level.
L62 - OSD
Bucket - 4
Merit - 1%
Bonus - 5%
R&D - 5%
New Base - 120K
First subpar review ever due to the most recent re-org. Suprised, but somehow feel it's comming. Manager is now an IC, never-to-be-seen skip manager now got demoted and me sacrificed.
Thought about continuing to milk the OSD cow for a couple of more years, but too bad that I can't wait.
Exit interview next week. Bye bye Bing, hello iCloud.
so, if the review system was used in k12 grading, this is how it would work:
Bucket 1 get A: star football players, cheerleaders, class presidents
2 get B: other sports players, pretty girls, glee club.
4 get D: ugly kids, anybody with braces or lisp, computer, debate, and chess team
5 get F: Goth kids, head bangers
3 get C: all others
Please tell me the average test scores wouldn't suffer.
Microsoft sucks. I am leaving after joining in for a year. Got a 3 but I do not like the management system. Look at how cisco falls you will know why MSFT is falling. skip manager is an Indian he is only promote his fellows from the same country. One college joined for one and a half years,but she already got promoted twice.
It's been about a week since our reviews were finished, and I already know of two very capable people in my small group that are quietly and calmly planning their exit. They'll be gone before MYCD--now that they're on the market, there are companies falling all over themselves to get them to an interview before they get snatched up.
I'm going to guess they got bad review scores (one of them received a 4 with contradictory glowing commentary) because they just wanted to build good software instead of playing politics. Management says they couldn't do anything about their review scores because they weren't "visible to upper management, so it was out of our hands," but the whys and hows don't matter now. Just the "what" of a 4 matters, and no counteroffer of any kind could make them stay now.
steveb and lisab: is this what you hoped your new-and-improvied review system would accomplish? Chasing away even more competent people? It seems to me you need these people here, especially now. You've got at least a few groups that are loaded to the brim with minimally competent people, and you're letting the incompetents run out anybody that criticizes their lack of ability to build a good product.
L62
Bucket - 1
Merit – 5.25%
R & D – 5%
New base – Somewhere between 120k – 130k
Bonus – 18%
Stock – 180%
I was not expecting a promotion since I have been in the level for less than a year and due to the fact that I have had 3 grade changes in less than 6 years.
However, it was nice of my manager to let me know that there is nothing else that I could do to get a promotion.
What I am pissed off about is about people getting promoted to senior band just because they had been standing in line for a long time. I have no personal issue with them, in fact I feel sorry for them since they are going to get butchered in the new review.
My gripe is that these people are going to make someone else’s life (people in junior band) miserable.
Does anyone know what happens to your accrued vacation time once you leave the company? Do you get paid for all your accrued vacation, or does it make more sense to use up all your vacation before you give your notice?
L62 dev IC
Promo to L63
Bucket: 1
Merit: 5.25%
Promo: 5%
Bonus: 18% of old base
Stock: 180% of old base
New Base: 131K
This is in a flattenned org, extremely strong dev group. So thrilled with the promo. Had to pull 50+ hour weeks most of the year, take bunch of skip manager level team scoped commitments in addition to my own features. Glad it paid off and very grateful.
Don't care that is not 1+ or that my comp ratio seems a bit low, plain 1 is good enough and I hope 1+ gets banned soon.Some people here complaining about the pay even after getting a 1 or 1+, is just plain shocking and disrespectful to others, so please stop. Anyone who got a 1 or higher is extremely blessed and should be grateful. I hope we realize how lucky we all are and are generous during the upcoming giving campaign.
For those devs that got promo'd from 62 to 63, again count your blessings and this year resolve to help your peers who are still in 62 band both technically and by mentoring etc, so that they can grow next year.
And he knew it. The scariest words on earth are "I was the hiring VP's college room-mate" ... you know, right then, that you're being threatened and you're just completely f*cked.
It starts at the top. Just remember what SteveB's key competency was for taking the role he has.
I'm a former HiPo who left before things turned ugly (having been around a while you learn to recognize the signs of a new manager wanting you out).
In general I would say MSFT suffers from a very common, often lethal, problem known as "don't rock the boat". No need for any of the sucking piglets to have anything change ... until they get picked up for the meat, at which point they tend to post on this blog.
All I can say on my side on comp is - if you are good - even as a principal HiPo the external world can be much (45% in my case) more rewarding. It will also tell you whether sucking it up is the best strategy or giving your manager the finger is finally warranted.
I have worked at Microsoft for almost 11 years. When I started at Microsoft, I truly believed I could make a difference - I felt empowered to voice my opinion, and felt my contributions were justly rewarded and recognized.
Fast forward 11 years - the culture at Microsoft has become toxic. Everyone is looking over their shoulder waiting for the ominous call from HR, to scared to voice any dissenting opinions (for fear of being branded "negative"), and asked to do the impossible on a daily basis (or run the risk of the dreaded 4/5).
While I truly respect my colleagues and enjoy working at Microsoft - I find myself questioning “why" I do what I do on a daily basis (long hours, time away from my family, stretch to achieve arbitrary goals defined by people who have never done anything outside of review a spreadsheet).
The review model in my opinion is irrelevant - if you work for Microsoft you generally make a good wage. My beef with Microsoft is not related to pay. Accountability has shifted from the true decision makers - the billionaires running this company to the field. While the company has made one bad decision after another - the employees on the ground have been tasked with trying to fix these gaps. Ballmer has spent billions in the past few years - and while I know he "loves this company" - so would I if I could do as I please without fear of retribution.
Maybe I'm just getting old - but I remember the days when I felt proud to work for Microsoft. Feeling proud had nothing to do with the review model - it was based on an open and honest work environment and a sense that together we could make things happen. I believe we've lost our mojo as a workforce and company - most people work here now because it's a job - not a passion. Until we fix this - we will never be the company we once were.
I have worked at Microsoft for almost 11 years. When I started at Microsoft, I truly believed I could make a difference - I felt empowered to voice my opinion, and felt my contributions were justly rewarded and recognized.
Fast forward 11 years - the culture at Microsoft has become toxic. Everyone is looking over their shoulder waiting for the ominous call from HR, to scared to voice any dissenting opinions (for fear of being branded "negative"), and asked to do the impossible on a daily basis (or run the risk of the dreaded 4/5).
While I truly respect my colleagues and enjoy working at Microsoft - I find myself questioning “why" I do what I do on a daily basis (long hours, time away from my family, stretch to achieve arbitrary goals defined by people who have never done anything outside of review a spreadsheet).
The review model in my opinion is irrelevant - if you work for Microsoft you generally make a good wage. My beef with Microsoft is not related to pay. Accountability has shifted from the true decision makers - the billionaires running this company to the field. While the company has made one bad decision after another - the employees on the ground have been tasked with trying to fix these gaps. Ballmer has spent billions in the past few years - and while I know he "loves this company" - so would I if I could do as I please without fear of retribution.
Maybe I'm just getting old - but I remember the days when I felt proud to work for Microsoft. Feeling proud had nothing to do with the review model - it was based on an open and honest work environment and a sense that together we could make things happen. I believe we've lost our mojo as a workforce and company - most people work here now because it's a job - not a passion. Until we fix this - we will never be the company we once were.
got a fairly good review (after last years shocker) but disappointed in what it means in real world terms when I look at how the company is doing and how upper management are rewarded for providing little or no leadership.
our group - despite being one that creates a lot of samples and is constantly on the bleeding edge - missed out on the R&D bonus which put us behind the curve to start with.
stock to bonus was, I'm sure, lower that the expectation HR had set earlier in the year (wish I'd taken a screenshot) and, as a 3, the merit rise didn't keep up with inflation. Bonus of 10% BES is nice to see.
The thing I absolutely hate the fact that although I got 100% of stock its split over 5 years and I don't actually see a dime of it for a year... given the way our SLT are destroying value with every decision they make that's less of a long term incentive and more of an irrelevance. The very fact that our SLT have changed their own reward system to a much heavier cash bias while cynically leaving the rank and file chained to the future millstone is a great indicator of where this is all going.
I don't know if the answer is to get rid of SteveB or to strip away the layer of rose tinted yes-men who suck up to him so he actually realizes there is a problem. LisaB is trying to change things, but obviously is out of her depth and needs to get help from some folks who understand the ramifications of the model. The scariest thing though is the clowns running the product divisions... Guthrie totally derailed STB with his failed .Net and Silverlight nonsense overcomplicating the hell out of developing for our platform (and is now off to do the same for the Azure albatross). Myerson and co have produced a phone that, while great to use, is too little and too late (and Mango is missing some basic features that would actually make it useful as part of an ecosystem). Office365... well, the press is calling that Office363 now and we can see how well that's working out. And then we come to Win8. destroying the developer story, pulling the rug out from under the rest of the company and forcing change for no reason beyond creating bullet points on EA renewal slides. I look forward to BUILD to finally get a glimpse at this mythical beast but given the lack of excitement in the product team I wonder if anyone will care by the end of the week.
I'm not going to rush into a decision. I'll give it a year - I love what I do and the folks I do it with - and see how the stack rank and stock price looks this time next year. Maybe 1/5th of that allocation I got this year will turn out to be worth something... assuming the clowns in Congress don't prove to be even more inept than the clowns running MSFT
Talking about a better review system.
I think the real problems with the current system are:
1. Too much bullshit in the review text. Too much time wasted on bullshit. The whole process must be simplified 20x times. E.g. a cap of 3 hours per person per year on everything - including writing reviews, writing and receiving feedback, performance conversations with manager, calibration meetings etc.
2. Too much micromanagement, talks & comparisons about insignificant stuff. Should be less grades in raking and bigger gap between levels. Nobody will complain "why they infairly put me 0.00056 points below that other peer" if this data will be well rounded up.
3. Too much difficulty in changing groups if you have less than ideal rank.
4. Give up the bullshit highschool idea that you can "work to improve on bad grades". People are much less likely to improve on weaknesses than improve on strength, and they are, in general, much less likely to change than it's "expected" with the current review system. Bad grade should clearly mean "we don't want you in this company", no strings attached.
A better solution could be:
1. Just 3 grades. E.g. 5% get a promotion. This is a big promotion, like 2-3 current levels, big salary increase. Another 2-5% get "underperformed" and it means "you have two months to find a better place outside of MS, hurry up". The majority 90% get all the same and no bullshit.
1.1. All the same means a decent year-to-year increase to match industry averages for skills, responsibilities and years of experience. Not a pathetic 2% increase which effectively means less money due to annual inflation.
2. Promotion should be given to folks who already perform at higher level for a while. It will hit morale of the team much harder if promotion is given to a weak candidate, vs some of the strong ones don't get it due to budget reasons.
3. Weak teams should be rewarded less than strong teams. One big company-level distribution curve is enough, no small curves.
What bothers me most about the reviews is that anyone kids themselves into thinking it's objective. You see that here in comments along the lines of: I don't know what you kids are whining about, I worked my ass off and I got rewarded for it.
OK, sure, it's good when that happens. I've had that happen to me some years. In other years I've worked my ass off and wound up feeling under-appreciated. It happens. To deny that it happens, or to act like a person's review score is the only measure of someone's worth, is just insane. And yet, that's what I see, on this blog, in my management chain, among my peers... That is a real kind of arrogance. For this and other reasons I am looking elsewhere.
Senior starts at L62 for tech writers...
No offense, but why are tech writers making 6 figures?
L64 SDE - Office
Rating: 1
Merit: 5.25%
R&D: 5%
Stock to base adj: $1500
Bonus: 18%
Stock: 180%
I am a L65 dev lead and have been in this level for 3 years - was hoping for a promo this year since I accomplished a lot of good things over the previous 3 years - but no signs of it. Manager says promos after 65 usually take a very long time.
What is the usual promo velocity for a 65 to 66 jump and a 66 to 67 jump? (for a typical dev lead in the E/70, 2.5 range)
Any guidance from Principals in this blog is appreciated.
L63
No promo
Bucket: 4
Merit: 1.2%
Promo: 0%
Bonus: ~$6k
Stock: ~$8,500
Review given by my 3rd manager in FY11, to whom I reported for ONE MONTH. She agreed that I met or exceeded all commitments. Previous reviews all very positive, peer reviews positive. Her boss doesn't like me, so there goes my career at MS.
A couple of internal hiring managers are willing to talk with me, even with a 4, but no loops so far. Not surprised, as >20% of Microsoft is now looking.
Okay, here's a situation I don't believe we've yet covered. This was my first time at the rodeo and I'd love the hivemind's insight re WTF:
Level 62
No promo (first year @ Msft)
Bucket 3
New base 116K
Merit 2.5%
Bonus 10%
Stock to base 7K
Stock 100%
Meh, but here's the deal: My written evaluation was brutal. Nasty. I'm talking we-want-to-5-you-yesterday stuff. My manager refused to read the full text in our meeting and looked palpably relived when I said I'd prefer to read it by myself in my office. I read it and, after I cooled down (15 months @Msft has provided a wine cellar purpose-built for such occasions), I started comparing notes with others in my department...and the same thing happened to them. Stranger (to me), one co-worker's manager told her that he didn't want to write her equally vicious assessment and had been "overruled."
So my questions are:
1. Who the hell actually writes this deathless prose?
2. Is it in fact deathless? Does anyone read the evaluation writeups or care?
By "anyone" I mean of course "other managers in other groups," because I'm naturally looking now to GTFO of this schizophrenic team. To be fair, I'll have to fight the rest of my crew to get to the door; our director is a vicious little boy-twat and is widely suspected of being the actual writer on all these reviews.
But is that permitted?
And does it matter?
Advice greatly welcomed; I owe the Oracle one boy-twat.
L63 SDE
Bucket: 4
From E/70 goldstar to 4.
I was told my contribution was great but had less business impact than my peers.
Learned the hard way to ask only for peer feedback from people you trust (manager shared comments to support 4 ranking).
Manager is a young hipo career maniac who'd sell his grandma who was superfriendly up to the review discussion where he had a go on me to sell the 4.
Bad taste after discussion, I bet his title will change to principle in a few days for throwing me overboard.
This place stinks. But after reading mini I decided not do what they want and quit.
My advice to other 4's: Career is over, but react calm, stay put, work smart, wait for a good hop off opportunity.
IMHO, looking at the hiring rate of ~15% per year at corp level, there is a high 'good attrition' pressure on solid 3's. Basically if you are not in the higher 3 ranks you'll be pushed down by new hires soon. So don't take it personal. Its not you, its the system which is screwed up. I feel sorry for the managers who play the game and sorry for the culture of disrespect.
Does anyone know what employers learn about one's Microsoft tenure from a typical background check? I presume Microsoft releases little or no information and that these checks rely on third-party sources (somehow). I've got a great offer. I was just promoted at MS in this review cycle, and I'm concerned that a background check may return my old title and level rather than my new one. I don't want the employer feeling misled.
How long can you stay in level 62?
>> "So, I am being offered a SDE II L62 position at MS, and they are offering me $124,000 base ... Do you guys think its a good offer?"
> That's a great offer. Your offer is quite above the L62 average salary.
For what it's worth: that's almost exactly my new salary after being ranked a 3 as a L62 (so I guess I'm "average").
From where I'm standing (as a dev), that's starting to look like a sweet spot--it's a decent amount of money given the low bar for the other SDE II's I see around me.
L63
Bucket: 5
Merit: 0
R&D Increase: 0
Bonus: 0
Stock: 0
age over 55
at the HQ
met all commitments
expected bucket 2-3
pure age discrimination, any recomendation for course of action?
Got 3 on review and just pissed off my manager on a work-related issue. I now do not expect anything better than 4 on next review. I am considering ditching MS but would like to give it one more try in a different group.
What are my chances for success? When is the best time to transfer? Should I even waste my time trying to transfer or just jump the ship now?
Hell, put it in your commitments: "I will ask my manager every other week for a more visible project. I will give a brownbag about that project and ignore the rest of my work. I will ask my GM's business manager to feature my project at the next all-hands .......
L, O and L. Your manager lets you write your own commitments so he/she can't rig your year from the gitgo? You don't have it as rough as some of us. In certain groups, each type of person regardless of level shares exactly the same commitments (PM = PM 2 = Senior PM), and one is not permitted to customize them.
Why does anyone think the WARN Act applies to five-firings? Termination for cause isn't an "employment loss" in WARN-speak. Poor performance is cause. (Not "misconduct" which is where you get into things that kill your chances at getting unemployment.)
I think Microsoft would have a hard time proving that 7%, and exactly 7%, is having performance issues every year. If it came to court a judge would find this very odd, and the smoking guns would be a strict % that have to be 5's and any HR guidelines that tell managers to write reviews to a score that is already determined. Because of this, my view (IANAL) is that Microsoft has to keep terminations under 500 each 30 days or run afoul of the WARN act. Of course violating the WARN act doesn't incur much in the way of penalty except you need to give 60 days pay and benefits to those who were affected. That would be common decency too, but Microsoft HR doesn't exhibit that.
Got promo'd from L61 to L62 during mid-year.
L62
Bucket - 3
Merit - 2.55%
R&D - 5%
Stock2Cash - 7k
Stock - 100%(11k)
Bonus ~10k
new base - 119k
Is it true that if you get a mid-year promo, you automatically get a 3? I'm pissed with this score given I feel I kicked ass all year.
Seriously, stop teasing people about layoffs. I would love to be laid off, if I get a reasonable severance. Enough of this insanity. Unfortunately HR isn't calling... just recruiters on LinkedIn.
L62, first year in Senior band
Office
No promo
No R&D bonus
Bucket: 3
Merit:2.55%
Stock-to-Salary: $7K
Bonus:10%
Stock:100%
New Base: $117k
---
Senior starts at 63 buddy.
---
Senior starts at L62 for tech writers...
---
In title only, L62 is still L62, there is no financial benefit from being able to call yourself a senior at L62, or a Principle at L64. For pay purposes the Senior band starts at L63 and Principle starts at L65. I never really understood why we pushed the titles down, but not the pay, other than to imply that we somehow expect higher performance for the same pay from those classified as such?
I can appreciate my compensation package. Been here 10 yrs. Comes close to $200K if you include stock grants due to a history of strong reviews.
This wasn't one of them, despite my best performance yet. What I can't take is the lack of recognition. (Yes, I'm in a competitive band.)
I'd take less and work harder to be elsewhere where the air is less toxic.
If you leave Microsoft, then you don't have to sign your review anymore.
You don't have to sign your review.
Senior starts at 63 buddy.
Senior starts at L62 for tech writers...
Same for MSIT.
I know so many affected by layoffs last week. Rolling Wednesday is coming up this week again, who gets the boot this week?
All y'all leave - before msft makes that choice for you.
Hello, does anyone know how to dispute a review? I cannot find anything on HRWeb or Perforamcne.
Thanks!
There were a few posters who indicated that just because they were in SMSG they didn't get the R&D bump. Well not only did I receive it and many others in MSIT, but the majority of the Engineering Team in Services received the R&D bump as well.
From what my GM and HR told us, there were some pretty strict qualifications around who received the bump and who didn't and the type of role and project you're working on had a significant impact on whether you were considered or not.
I can understand why people who be upset if they didn't get the increase... but then MS is a big place... and there are lots of opportunities for you to apply and go to a new team... even in MSIT we have some teams that got the R&D bump and some that didn't... and from my understanding there's an expectation that we'll be moving more roles to the Engineering Profession as the year continues... So.. if you don't like it (and you're a good Dev, SDET or PM) than apply for a new role.
BTW - I hear not everyone in the Product Groups got the R&D bump...
L63 (SDE)
rating 1
merit 5.25%
promo 5 %
R&D 5%
stock to pay 4k
new base pay 141k
bonus 18%
stock award 180 %
I'm motivated by being the best rather than how much of a raise I'm getting but this year, the base pay jump is significant even without a promotion. The 401k match, ESPP 10% and future raises as a % of base make this a good trade off. This is true especially since I don't see myself at the company more than 5 years from now.
Many concerns around on how people were expected 1 or 2 but ended up a 3 or lower.
My 2 cents, from my short experience here. in 2009 I was E/20,my boss relied heavely on me. Re-Orged, My new boss didnt know me well, Despite my absolute hardwork and his continued accolades, I ended up with E/70. This year I am 1+ because he releied a lot on me, despite me doing the same thing.
Working hard towards your team's goals and geniuinely ownning the product would fetch a 2 or 1. You help others, enjoy work and there are lot of opportunities in MSFT in every team...Just own the product and results will follow.
L61 - MSIT
Bucket - 5
Merit - 0
Bonus - 0
Stock - 0
New Base Pay - Unemployment
Escorted from the bldg directly after review. No PIP, no warning and HR was never involved until termination was announced.
After three solid reviews, changed mgrs due to re-org, then got poor review in FY10. At MYCD same mgr suggested I was trending in the right direction for FY11. Was also given added responsibilities over the past two months. So WTF?
One last question: If PEOPLE, are the organization's #1 resource, then why have a review system that demoralizes, devalues and disposes of >20% of them every year? That's a helluva way to show the love.
Not sure if this applies to others, but looks like there may be a new strategy for the 5's:
Tell them that they are not underperforming and don't need an improvement plan or such, but don't fire/RIF them.. make them leave voluntary.
I saw suggestions to contact an attorney, even if you're not RIF'ed. But what's the objective? I guess one could be to be fired anyway but with new severance package? Or can you really file a case just because you've missed out on all of the benefits except base salary?
Can people go from 63 to 64 in a year given that there are already about 10 people at the Senior Level (Leads and ICs combined) for quite sometime?
"Got 3 on review and just pissed off my manager on a work-related issue. I now do not expect anything better than 4 on next review. I am considering ditching MS but would like to give it one more try in a different group.
What are my chances for success? When is the best time to transfer? Should I even waste my time trying to transfer or just jump the ship now?"
You can't transfer with a 5, nobody will touch you.
Leave now.
"Does anyone know what happens to your accrued vacation time once you leave the company? Do you get paid for all your accrued vacation, or does it make more sense to use up all your vacation before you give your notice?"
Microsoft will pay you for any unused vacation days.
"If I quit Microsoft, will my future employer, be it Google or Amazon, ask for my past review scores? I assume they can get my current annual pay directly from Microsoft, but do they normally ask interviewees for anything else they can't get themselves?
No, they can't get your review score from Microsoft or anywhere else unless you choose to share it with them.
If they ask you about your past performance, I strongly suggest you keep it light-and-breezy and simply say you have a strong performance history and you're just ready to try something else.
If they ask you specifically for your most recent Microsoft review score, you don't want to work for that company.
Here's something interesting you can try today: go to http://www.ted.com/ and search Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. Now try the same for Ballmer. Hmmm. Let's try again. Go to YouTube and search for Ballmer. I stopped watching after the first 5 seconds of The Best of Ballmer as I was embarrassed. And there you have it. Like CEO like company. And you are going to lose sleep over an unfair review? It's not worth it. Jump ship while you can. Microsoft management deserves no allegiance. NULL. And don't waste your time on BUILD today. The glowing reviews in the press have been pre-paid in advance, the fat bonuses have been paid (and spent). Now's the time for the army of monkeys to get "super excited" and to start coding. Don't be one of them.
L64 (SDE, no promo)
Rating: 3
Merit: 2.50%
R&D: 5%
Stock to pay: 1.5k
New base pay: 143k (12K increase)
Bonus: 10% (13K)
Stock award: 100% (24K, only plan to stick around for another 2 years, so 10K)
Like the team and my manager, hate the new system. Left at 3PM the day of the review since I was pissed off and demoralized because of the 3. If someone told me 10 years ago that I would be getting upset on a day I get 12K salary increase and a 13K bonus, I would not have believed it!
How do you do it, Microsoft? Like George Costanza maybe you ought to try doing the exact opposite of every instinct you ever had!
I am a L65 dev lead and have been in this level for 3 years - was hoping for a promo this year since I accomplished a lot of good things over the previous 3 years - but no signs of it. Manager says promos after 65 usually take a very long time.
I left the company last year after being an L65 for almost nine years. I had decent enough reviews, E/20, E/70 & A/70 but just couldn't seem to make the next level despite working with a highly placed mentor. In the end I came to realize I'm a nice guy and nice guys finish last at MS. When presented with a great opportunity via a LinkedIn recruiter, I left. I love my new position (which pays about 15% more than I made at MS) and I truly enjoyed my summer, as in didn't have to worry about the end-of-summer review foolishness. As many have said, "the grass really is greener"
How do I dispute a review? I could not find any information on HRWeb or Performance.
Thanks!
An email just went out that someone on my team just left MSFT as of today, sent by the person's manager, who wished them well in their future endeavors. Totally unexpected and sudden, no good-bye from the former employee themselves, does this seem like a RIF?
L62 - Support
Bucket - 5
Merit - 0
Bonus - 0
Stock - 0
New Base Pay - Unemployment
Moved out for too long in same level. Manager stated I was one of the best on the team for getting the job done plus projects but his hands were tied. He would not put that in writing. First time ever in 17 years meeting HR and escorted out the buiding with no compensation.
LOL indeed. like in the cesspool which is MS Services, where commitments and targets are the same whether you are a principal or a brand new college hire. how does that make any sense? idiotic.
"Hell, put it in your commitments: "I will ask my manager every other week for a more visible project. I will give a brownbag about that project and ignore the rest of my work. I will ask my GM's business manager to feature my project at the next all-hands .......
L, O and L. Your manager lets you write your own commitments so he/she can't rig your year from the gitgo? You don't have it as rough as some of us. In certain groups, each type of person regardless of level shares exactly the same commitments (PM = PM 2 = Senior PM), and one is not permitted to customize them."
If I quit Microsoft, will my future employer, be it Google or Amazon, ask for my past review scores? I assume they can get my current annual pay directly from Microsoft, but do they normally ask interviewees for anything else they can't get themselves?
I'm an L63 dev and got a 5 out of nowhere after a reorg
Microsoft will only confirm/deny employment. Nothing about the work you did, your group, title, reviews, compensation... nothing. ONLY whether or not you worked there.
If you've been working at Microsoft for more than 5 minutes, you should be keenly aware of this. It was drilled into us at NEO and then in many subsequent training sessions/videos/emails/etc. Maybe you got a 5 for being oblivious.
Microsoft sucks. I am leaving after joining in for a year. Got a 3 but I do not like the management system. Look at how cisco falls you will know why MSFT is falling. skip manager is an Indian he is only promote his fellows from the same country. One college joined for one and a half years,but she already got promoted twice.
Isn't it ironic that YOU are being xenophobic. (God help you if you speak English natively, because your command of the language is horrific.)
Microsoft may have a "problem" with Indians, and it's probably worth some reasoned debate in the future, but almost all of the important decisions are still being made by whitey. You think Microsoft missed the boat on e.g. iPhones because your team's dev manager hired all his Indian friends? Right.
So, my significant other works here too, and what happened to them is raising some red flags for me.
They accepted a position to a new org during reviews. They were told that the standing review was a 3, and this was verified to the new manager and group, because they do not interview 4's or 5's.
Moved to the new org, everything is peachy. Other colleagues in the same org that are getting 4's or 5's are being turned away, even though there are several openings yet to be filled.
Then, today they give a rating of 5.
WTF? isn't that obviously retaliatory? I mean, you would think that a 4 would be hard to argue, since you just left a group doing a pretty good job, with multiple patents under your belt. But to get a 5? New manager is absolutely stunned.
L65
Bucket: 5
Merit: 0
Promo: 0%
Bonus: $0K
Stock: $0K
Midyear was meet or exceeds expectations.
Looking for a job
No warning, no validation, No truth, No recourse.
I hope this was my old boss, who did the same to me (former MS L63) 1 year ago. BTW, much happier now in a more sane company!
If you work in Redmond, you are working at-will. This means you can quit anytime and let go at anytime for any reason (so long as it's not discrimination against a protected class).
L64
Bucket: 5
Merit: 0%
Promo: 0%
Bonus: $0
Stock: $0
Midyear & subsequent 1:1's: achieved and on track, and all previous reviews have been acheived or higher.
Took on stretch goals in H2 that were outside of my core development in order to stretch myself, whilst still performing core role.
No warning. Suggested a "Career Jumpstart Program" that sounds like an updated PIP to me.
Message: It's not what you acheived that matters, it's how you acheived it, and what others think of you. Calibration was a blood bath as others have said. Helpfully told that if I'd been a 63, or been here less time, I'd probably have done better. Sigh.
Now looking for a new job outside of MS, I've decided I've had enough of the toxic atmosphere here
REALLY glad I left MS two months ago. My blood pressure has already dropped 10 points. I can only imagine what this review cycle would have been like - probably with me on the street.
To my friends that are still in b28 - get out while you can. If you can.
A better review system would not include a bucket of people you'd want to fire. Why wait for an annual review if you need to get rid of someone? Real management is about giving them feedback early and often and working with them for improvement. Letting someone go is necessary sometimes, and that's when you manage them out or fire them. No-one gets a surprise.
This idea that you carry dead wood for half the year or more while you wait for the next annual review is madness.
Of course, removing the 'fire them' bucket means that each manager must be accountable for headcount throughout the year, something most businesses can handle.
Jack Welch's idea of annually removing the bottom 10% has been shown to be an emperor with no clothes.
No offense, but why are tech writers making 6 figures?
To paraphrase a bit from Fight Club:
Look: The people whose value you’re questioning, you depend on them more than you realize. We’re the people who explain to customers how to deploy and configure the applications that you create. We provide information to help users locate the replacement functionality for the 15-year old feature that you cut from the latest version. We make sure the company doesn’t look foolish by releasing products with grammatically deficient or incomprehensible UI strings. We instruct third-party developers in how to customize our more complex products. We scrub your error messages and tooltip text to make sure that no more culturally offensive terms creep in that would lead to the arrest and detention of more in-country managers in the Middle East. We touch nearly every part of Microsoft’s offerings.
Do not F*CK with us.
:-P
Hello, does anyone know how to dispute a review? I cannot find anything on HRWeb or Perforamcne.
There is nothing on hrweb because there is no process. Microsoft does everything possible to discourage employees from disputing a review. By the time you receive a review, budget has been allocated and since the reviews are relative to your peers, someone going up means someone else needs to go down.
The reality of it is that the system drives employees like lemmings until eventually they fall off a cliff. If your employment with the company is not uppermost in your priority list and you feel your review is disputable in a court of law, by all means retain counsel to secure appropriate compensation. Otherwise, grin and bear it.
anyone noticed LisaB's new (?) title of CPO?
Level 62
No promo (first year @ Msft)
Bucket 3
...
Meh, but here's the deal: My written evaluation was brutal. Nasty. I'm talking we-want-to-5-you-yesterday stuff…Stranger (to me), one co-worker's manager told her that he didn't want to write her equally vicious assessment and had been "overruled."
Get the fuck out. NOW! There are only two reasons I can think of as to why they would give you an okay score but your skip-level would still insist on blasting his okay people on review feedback:
1.They want to keep you without rewarding you properly and are trying to prevent you from transferring elsewhere in the company. Yes, other managers look at the feedback especially if you have less than a top score. The feedback could sway would-be managers toward other candidates. Not to mention you can be used as next year’s review cannon fodder. Not good.
2. They’re establishing the paper trail to justify letting you go within the year. My team did that and it looks like they’re replacing us with h1-b’s and overseas teams. Is your skip-level a current or former h1-b by chance?
"I saw suggestions to contact an attorney, even if you're not RIF'ed. But what's the objective? I guess one could be to be fired anyway but with new severance package? Or can you really file a case just because you've missed out on all of the benefits except base salary?"
The suggestions to contact an attorney are only for those people who felt that they should dispute their review. Unless you have a legally actionable issue -- like discrimination or hostile work environment -- you should never dispute your review at Microsoft as it will only cause you to be identified as a trouble-maker.
Microsoft has an ironclad policy about not changing review scores -- over the last 15 years I've had a number of employees try a number of things to get review scores changed and it's never happened. What does happen is that it destroys whatever credibility you might have with your management chain and puts a giant target on your back.
So, if you're really angry about your review, ask yourself if you have cause to contact an attorney. If Microsoft has done something illegal then you should, if they haven't done anything illegal then you should sign your review and either try to move to another team or leave the company.
Microsoft can give you a terrible review without any reason, they can tell you all year that you're awesome and then give you a 5, and none of it is necessarily illegal. It's evil and unethical, but it's not illegal. Unless you can prove discrimination for something like age or disability or some other protected status, then you have no options.
Understand that The Man almost always wins, even when there IS illegal activity. A crappy boss who plays favorites and tells you one thing while doing another is sadly not illegal, and Microsoft doesn't care.
How long can an IC stay at the same level (for example level 62 SDET II)? Is it looked down upon if someone is at the same level but performing well at the level?
As I understand it if you remain a L62 for more than 60 months you should expect to get managed out, even if you are performing well at your level because you show no growth potential.
L63 seems to be the magic hurdle that you need to cross to be considered a viable long term contributor to the company.
Senior starts at L62 for tech writers...
---
In title only, L62 is still L62, there is no financial benefit from being able to call yourself a senior at L62, or a Principle at L64. For pay purposes the Senior band starts at L63 and Principle starts at L65. I never really understood why we pushed the titles down, but not the pay, other than to imply that we somehow expect higher performance for the same pay from those classified as such?
Seems like it.
Does anyone know what happens to your accrued vacation time once you leave the company? Do you get paid for all your accrued vacation, or does it make more sense to use up all your vacation before you give your notice?
Several friends recently departed for Amazon, I believe they said they were given the option to cash out, i.e. trade vacation time for a check, or have their last day be date X, and then simply remain on the payroll until their vacation days ran out. I suppose which option you choose probably depends on whether or not you have something new lined up, as continuing on the payroll vs. cashing out means that all your benefits are still in effect until your vacation runs out.
Does anyone know what happens to your accrued vacation time once you leave the company? Do you get paid for all your accrued vacation, or does it make more sense to use up all your vacation before you give your notice?
-------------------------
Yes, you get paid. Take your vacation b4 giving notice. That way you're still medically covered and continue to accrue vacation while on vacation...
No offense, but why are tech writers making 6 figures?
--------------------------
Wondering too. Majority just have English or Arts related degree (eg, politics, marketing, tech writing...). If they work for newspapers or publishing house, their salary will be way way lower.
Is it true that if you get a mid-year promo, you automatically get a 3? I'm pissed with this score given I feel I kicked ass all year.
It happened to me too. But the explanation was we calibrated 61 and 62 separately. So new 62 can't get better than 3. Don't like 3, will leave MS soon.
They’re establishing the paper trail to justify letting you go within the year. My team did that and it looks like they’re replacing us with h1-b’s and overseas teams. Is your skip-level a current or former h1-b by chance?
That sounds quite fair. After all, Microsoft will save money on salaries, and that's all that matters, isn't it?
Working hard towards your team's goals and geniuinely ownning the product would fetch a 2 or 1. You help others, enjoy work and there are lot of opportunities in MSFT in every team...Just own the product and results will follow.
You be sure to let us know how things work out in the end, because as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow, your day will come...
No offense, but why are tech writers making 6 figures?
--------------------------
Wondering too. Majority just have English or Arts related degree (eg, politics, marketing, tech writing...). If they work for newspapers or publishing house, their salary will be way way lower.
LOL -- assuming you work at MS -- not understanding the value of adding clarity and comprehension for users of your shipping products speaks volumes about why MS is in such a hole.
MY promo != auto 3.
Build on great work that got you promo and get a better score.
I was fired a couple of weeks ago for being in bucket# 5.
Now I am finding it difficult to get information from HR about things like - getting my vacation balance check, info on COBRA, experience letter etc
How do I get answers from HR about these matters.
Ex-Google here. No, you won't be asked about your internal Microsoft scores. You will be asked your college and grad school GPAs (!!!) You will also be asked to do things you could have done a year out of college but have since forgotten (e.g. explaining which O all of the major sorts are), while rarely being asked about the things you are an expert on now. In short, you'll be interviewed by somebody very recently out of school who wants to haze you in the way that they were hazed.
Other than that? Google operates on an intensive year-round self-evaluation system. Every quarter you start out by writing "OKRs" listing all your goals for that quarter, complete with descriptions of how you'll know if you did it. At the end of that quarter, you'll do an evaluation on how well you achieved your goals. Every team rolls up these goals into their OKR, and up and up the management chain. There are twice-quarterly all-hands where all the senior management discuss their OKRs and the success of them.
Every quarter you're stack-ranked; it's called "calibration". Every year, with an optional at the half-year, you do a really elaborate self-evaluation of your strengths and weaknesses and goals, complete with lots of peer reviews, as well as input from the teams you worked with. The review of this packet determines your salary/bonus. You have to do an entirely separate self-evaluation package for promotion. Your manager has very little influence on promotion (this is a goal); the big self-evals go to a committee of managers and have to be debated, the same sort of horse-trading you complain about at Microsoft. Self-promotion is vital to your career; you want people to have heard of you.
There's an explicit goal of managing out the bottom 5%. There is a curve.
If you want to work someplace where you aren't focusing on self-promotion and networking, pick a smaller company that is desperate for skills. There are many cool things about Google, but the single biggest complaint in employee satisfaction is the review/promotion process. (Bad management is the second, IIRC.)
"So new 62 can't get better than 3"
That's a complete BS. I got a 1 though I was promoted mid-year. But then to be honest: (1) I did a really good job (2) I am working with a bunch of idiots (3) I should have been promoted an year back
I've been on military leave for 3 years. Does anyone know what the pay band is for L60 now? Thanks!
@Is it true that if you get a mid-year promo, you automatically get a 3? I'm pissed with this score given I feel I kicked ass all year.
you are lucky dude. i got 4.
L64
Score 4.0
After over a decade of excellent reviews, this was my first bad review score. I do not think it was deserved, although my management did "own" the message. They also admitted that the stack rank was done on fewer than 20 people. So much for the claim that the curve is applied to a more statistically significant sample. (I also know from past experience, at least in some groups, that each smaller group is required to produce a "balanced" rank.)
At first, I was rather devasted, realizing that my propsects at Microsoft are now seriously limited. After a day or two, I began to see this situation as very liberating- a gift of sorts. I'm keeping a postive attitude while learning new skills that I believe will position me well for employment outside of MS.
Meanwhile, I'm treating my current job (haven't been managed out yet) as I would a contract assignment. I'm doing my best while managing my stress and no longer treating the MS gig as a lifetime commitment. I'll be ready to test the waters as soon as I get a bit more comfortable with some of the non-MS technologies that I'm exploring.
I'm also treating the entire experience as a learning one... I'm actually pleased that I've been able to handle the situation gracefully, and not in a thin skinned way. MS is under no obligation to keep me as an employee, and I'm in under no obligation to stay. I do believe this is MS's loss to send this kind of message to productive and experienced employees like myself. However, I'm excited about exploring the opportunities that await.
I've never like unions, but can understand why they sprang into being in the last century. A few years ago, I overheard some managers as they finished a conversation and stepped into the hallway, and one said "...if they keep this up, it's going to bring the WTA in." (WTA == Washington Technical Alliance, local tech union that's been fruitlessly knocking on the door for years)
While Microsoft is quite generous in the overall comp + benefits equation, the weirdly tainted review system sure seems like it could provide impetus to organize.
Saw two colleagues in tears this week. I don't understand how this is good for the team, even if they were low performers. I'm a human being, and it traumatizes me to see others in so much pain.
My Hubby got a 5, he was invited to a meeting to discuss if he should be on a capability plan or not - we followed all the process in the capability policy by preparing all the work that he had done to prove why he should not be on a capability plan and neither his boss nor HR were interested - they had made up their mind already - he was on a plan and if he doesnt complete it he will be terminated again - not what the policy says, MSFT is like the big boys at school - they play by their own rules... anyone had any experience of a capability plan?
"Jack Welch's idea of annually removing the bottom 10% has been shown to be an emperor with no clothes."
I think Jack himself admitted this policy was jacked.
No offense, but why are tech writers making 6 figures?
--------------------------
Wondering too. Majority just have English or Arts related degree (eg, politics, marketing, tech writing...). If they work for newspapers or publishing house, their salary will be way way lower.
-----------------------
Quite a few actually came out of tech disciplines and have CS degrees.
"OK, new 65 here and worries about this. Could you explain the 150%? Thanks!"
"Next year senior band bonus and stock rises to %150 of what it is today. This year a L65 who receives a 4 gets the same % compensation as a L64 who gets a 3. Next year it changes, you're better off as a L64 with a 3 than a L65 with a 4. Considering the brutal competition in the Princpal band in many orgs, you may be better off not being promoted. Don't count on HR figuring out the glitch."
I am a principal with my current employer.
Going for an interview for a senior position in MS on next week.
Seems like they will offer me a level 64 in everything will be fine.
Should I ask about L65 consider all comments that L64 is more likely to be better in term of compensation and that it is very hard to reach L66 from 65?
Any advices?
Many concerns ... Working hard towards your team's goals and geniuinely ownning the product would fetch a 2 or 1. You help others, enjoy work and there are lot of opportunities in MSFT in every team...Just own the product and results will follow.
Awww, that's so sweet! I love your naive enthusiasm. Enjoy it while you can. Not every duck gets shot during duck-hunting season; but eventually, lots of ducks get shot; and it is cruel and bloody when it happens. I'm sure my own story is common enough - I was told for several reviews in a row that I was indispensable, I exceeded, great team player, the universal go-to man for my product, etc. Then in 2009 - bang! Manager calls me into a meeting room; as I walk in I see HR guy in there; 45 minutes later I'm standing on the NE 40th St sidewalk, stunned and jobless. I received a bunch of email from folks all over MS saying they were shocked and sorry to lose me. Fortunately I now work at another major IT company which does NOT have the insane and diseased culture of Microsoft under Ballmer and Turner. There probably is a portion of MS staff who really do get the Review score they deserve; but don't generalize too much from your own experience.
The Microsoft revolving door: Former Powerset CEO has left the building
Again, as I’ve wondered aloud in several recent posts on various Microsoft defections, what gives? Why are folks jumping ship now (besides the oft-cited stock-vesting reasons)? One of my readers with good knowledge of Microsoft’s inner-workings had an interesting theory.
“The opportunities for (Microsoft internal) Partners and CVPs (Corporate Vice Presidents) is shrinking, in large part because some of (Windows Chief) Steven Sinofsky’s philosophies are being adopted across the company. One, for example, is the continuing elimination of the GM (General Manager) and PUM (Product Unit Manager) roles in favor of the discipline directors reporting to the CVP, SVP, or even President level,” my contact said.
This means that specialists are becoming favored over generalists, and “anyone wanting to ‘own’ something inside Microsoft is out of luck,” my contact said..
I am relatively new to MSFT and this discussion and already frustrated by these stories. I came from a large and "reputable" tech company and have witnessed all kinds of nasty shit there that people talk about here, and worse. I have not yet seen that at MSFT but not ruling out that it doesn't happen.
Question is, aren't all large companies like that? Bull shit is everywhere. I read posts claiming racism, age discrimination, health discrimination, nepotism, whatever, you name it. Is there anyone who works for a large tech company and claims their company is free from all that bull shit? If there was such company why isn't everyone there already?
WTF? Why people are complaining about life being unfair? Go start your own business and be happy!
L65 IC dev. Got 2 in the review. Today I gave notice to my manager that I'm leaving Microsoft for greener pastures. That the guy looked so surprised made me only think two things:
- Why is it that he is my manager? He shows no interest on me or my work. I did a great job last year (or wouldn't have gotten a 2 "despite him"). Yet, here is this Level 66+ guy getting a lot of money and having no clue about what his direct reports are thinking. How is this called management?
- What is that this team was thinking? It is clear these any not dumb people. How could they put themselves in this situation in which there will be no way to avoid the "bad attrition" in their records? Are they really unaware of the market for devs right now, or are they thinking principals at Microsoft have no further aspirations than to sit around and wait?
The reason why MS has adopted this review system is that this way they can trim MS (goal of mini :)). They know that 5s will be made to exit or they will exit on their own. 4s will also get demoralized and exit. So out of 20% atleast 10% would leave MS for sure. Few years with this system and we will have a leaner and thinner MS. At Lisab, SteveB's level it does not matter whether a great IC can become a victim here. IC's are dispensible.
Also, notice that in > 1000 posts there is NOT A SINGLE manager cribbing.
No offense, but why are tech writers making 6 figures?
--------------------------
Wondering too. Majority just have English or Arts related degree (eg, politics, marketing, tech writing...). If they work for newspapers or publishing house, their salary will be way way lower.
I don't know what's more ridiculous, your attack on another professional or your obvious lack of intelligence. Afterall, who's smarter? The savvy tech writer who can make a very good living with a BS in Technical Communication, or someone like you who probably got a secondary degree such as a Masters degree or PhD but who isn't making all that much money? Also, you clearly don't know jack about technical writing--newspapers use journalists, not tech writers. Totally different skill set.
If you wanna pick on the deadwood at Microsoft, why not look to HR or Recruiting--they get paid just as well, but unlike Tech Writers, don't actually deliver a product, make the company revenue, or do anything but breathe air and take up space.
The longer you stay at Microsoft, the less the company values you and more toxic the environment becomes. Beware!
The cons far outweigh the benefits at this company. After 10+ years, I have learned the hard truth about this company and how they treat their employees.
1.) The review system is based first on favoritism, second on the effectiveness of your manager relative to their peers, and third on perception.
2.) Hard work is not rewarded at this company. Brown-nosing is!
3.) Honesty and ethics is not rewarded at this company. Loyalty is bought by projecting the image that makes your org look good. Leave your ethics at home!
Ballmer does not have a clue. He is wasteful with the company's resources, lacks vision for keeping the company competitive, and needs to be fired! Why is he still around???? Brummel's programs have promoted cost savings and a highly discretionary reward system based upon who you know at the expense of real talent who have the expertise and the experience needed to shape the company's future.
What a complete joke! No wonder the stock price is as bad as it has been for so long. Look at the people who are supposedly managing this company and the toxic practices their policies are rewarding.
Got kudos all year around and completed everything before or on time, and then given a 5! Just wondering what kind of workers MS really want? Visibility seems to be top of the list but what good does it really do to the company? Judging from what MS has progressing, I guess not much. The real working horses who do not braodcast their effort are viewed as not the right employees.
I'm leaving.
I was a Platinum Circle of Excellence winner. Left MSFT in April. Came into MSFT via an acquisition. Initially believed everything we were told about MSFT's desire to be innovative and have rapid product release cycles. Don't know if that was an intentional lie or just a delusional statement. In MSFT meetings, was always disappointed to hear product management talk about the market target goal being "just good enough." Especially when "just good enough" applied to the market three years before the product would come to market. Happy to be back at a best-of-breed nimble company without the baggage of large company internal politics and a painful corporate preference to enter new markets too late (iPhone, iPad, etc.) Enjoying using a Macbook Air and iPhone at my new company -- and even though I have Parallels to run Windows 7 on the MacBook Air, I've only launched Windows7 less than five times.
To paraphrase a bit from Fight Club:
Look: The people whose value you’re questioning, you depend on them more than you realize. We’re the people who explain to customers how to deploy and configure the applications that you create. We provide information to help users locate the replacement functionality for the 15-year old feature that you cut from the latest version. We make sure the company doesn’t look foolish by releasing products with grammatically deficient or incomprehensible UI strings. We instruct third-party developers in how to customize our more complex products. We scrub your error messages and tooltip text to make sure that no more culturally offensive terms creep in that would lead to the arrest and detention of more in-country managers in the Middle East. We touch nearly every part of Microsoft’s offerings.
---------------------------
Do not F*CK with us.
----------------
Except there are many people with English degrees, writing certs, arts degrees, etc out there to choose from and hire. The supply is plentiful compared to demand.
Tech writers don't write product code or design product. They're not the product team.
L64 Dev in Windows leaving MS after too many years.
Sinofsky is destroying Windows. The triad system limits positions for advancement and makes one's first loyalty to discipline instead of Windows. Development is a 6 weeks of coding then 9 to 11 weeks of integration/testing. 3 sets of specs with 20 plus pages of boilerplate text. Then hours of reviews going over them. Productive - no. Yet none of them describe the design in significant detail. Total waste of time. When he led Office he passed any features by Walt Mossberg. Incredible ineffciency and lowered expectations. He shows such trust new UI features are hidden from the rest of the Windows group. Put a ribbon on it and it's new.
The review system is beyond counterproductive. If you wanted to create a system to destroy all creative impulses and foster backstabbing and brown-nosing, this is the one. Employees work in fear of the random 3/4/5 from the sky to freeze you in a bad situation. Mid-year, writing your review - pointless. The decisions are already made before you write a word. Then you wait until September for the results. Your words are just used against you. It's easy to cherry pick among the hundreds of CSP items.
Leadership is floundering from multi-billion dollar mistake to multi-billion dollar mistake promoting those responsible in a vain attempt to buy success. The model of fast-follower instead of innovator has not worked for 20 years, the market moves too fast. Any vision left this company many years ago.
If these are conscious rather than incompetent decisions there is only one answer - the SLT is milking the corpse of Microsoft for all the money they can leaving products in maintenance mode while still throwing money in a last gasp for relevance.
Have fun, I'm outa here for a creative environment where I'm appreciated and get a huge raise.
I was given mid-year promo to 62, Mid-year tracking to e20, great feedback all long.
Kicked ass, Filed patent, Successfully Delivered key component with great quality, impacted multiple features across teams, great feedback and then received 3.
Told that it is because of mid year promo. Feeling Bummed and Powerless. Thanks Boss, whatever ego that I had is now completely destroyed.
Learnt an important lesson: Time can loot everything away in a moment. Need to learn how to suck it up and just believe in Karma....
What's the point of discussing the compensation system at a company where people don't do the work, resource do? There is only one goal of this or any other compensation system here, stack rank people so you know who to manage out and make that good attrition number for your org. You are not a person, you are a bolt in a sub-assembly of a large machine. If for any reason (valid or not) you don't function, we're just going to get a new bolt.
It's hilarious a company that nets $6bil / quarter, has shown zero stock growth potential and does no better than me2 slow to release products can continue to treat it's employees more and more like crap every day.
I guess when the only way you know how to run a business is through cost control that's all you can do. So the nickle and diming of employees continues. This company is an empty shell of what it was.
Overseas - L63
Bucket 5
Merit increase from converting stock into salary
No Bonus, No Stock, No Nothing.
At the same time: no PIP program either, weird.
Expected 1-2 score and Promo.
However, since July they expect me to take an additional new non-technical role (done by L64-L65 before) *and* my old job?
People are congratulating me with the new additional role, feels sour...
I guess there's 2 options:
1) Refuse the new role, and make the old technical role perform up to expectations.
2) Accept the new role, work my ass off while running the risk of spreading too thin.
Or a 3rd option: try to get fired and a good package (remember: overseas).
What's wise? How long will it take to erase this 5 and get the promo I deserved?
No offense, but why are tech writers making 6 figures?
Because code writers are making 6 figures and they need stuff written by tech writers to get their job done.
Forced curve is a lazy way to evaluate people. That way managers doing the stack ranking don't have to do the hard work of learning about the real work done by employees. They stack rank based on "visibility" and go home because they machines take care of the rest.
Another sign that Microsoft is losing it. A company that can keep a disastrous CEO around for 10+ years is a company unable to tell the difference between good work and bad work. Even lousy Yahoo managed to fire its disastrous CEO in less than 3 years.
Here's some info for MSFT people that I've learned over the last couple of weeks.
I've done informationals with a handful of teams, I can say that each and every team wanted to know my last review score (mine was a 2) because they will not interview 4s or 5s.
This may not be an absolute but I'm sure its going to be the majority.
"pure age discrimination, any recomendation for course of action?
Sunday, September 11, 2011 12:23:00PM"
See either a plaintiff's employment attorney (source below), and/or EEOC for filing a claim against the company. Your chances of success with the EEOC are slim, since they only 'fight' about 2% of the cases they get (they told me once they only like to pursue "living wage" claims), and dismiss most others to allow them to sue individually; HOWEVER, it might keep you employed the year+ it takes for the EEOC to get around 'investigating' the case. While awaiting investigation, MS is immediately put on notice by the EEOC that a claim is pending by you and Microsoft will not want to fire you and risk a "retaliation" claim. Retaliating against you is illegal.
Fast forward a year plus later if you want to wait that long, and you'll get a right to sue letter. You can sue MS while still employed and ask for discovery of all review and HR documents that are confidential and related to your claim to see how others in the org stacked up against you. HR will "coincidentally" freeze you in your position, and you'll continue to get low review scores - unrelated of course - but the time you have may help you find a new job somewhere else while getting paid.
MS has been known to seriously 'misrepresent' facts to the EEOC, in my belief, which you will find out _after_ the case closes, because the EEOC fails to interview witnesses, only taking the 'misinformed' MS attorney's word for what has/is happening, and you'll have to do the actual digging, during your lawsuit where you'll find the discrepancies. After the EEOC closes the case, you can ask for all of MS's responses to the EEOC via the Freedom of Information Act. You can use this information to sue the Company or take the written 'misrepresentations' to the DOJ, as a whistleblower.
You can also ask the EEOC for a Right to Sue letter up front and not wait the year in order to sue.
This is not advice from an attorney so do consult one that specializes in employment law with experience in dealing with Microsoft: http://welaweb.org It's worth the few hundred bucks.
MS hopes you will not take the time.
Microsoft has an ironclad policy about not changing review scores -- over the last 15 years I've had a number of employees try a number of things to get review scores changed and it's never happened.,
I haven't faced this yet in the new system, but in a decade here I've seen review scores and docs changed before signing/uploading. After signing/uploading is a different story.
I know a middle-manager who, when still new at MS, threw a direct report under the bus at review time because his own manager (the direct's skip-level) said to do so. Two months later when the middle-manager realized he'd been used by the skip-level, the middle-manager asked HR to revise the directs' rating. HR said "too late." True story.
Also, have some sympathy for your manager. Implementing this new system required us to hand out a lot more 4/5 ratings at more populated levels (L63/64/65) than before. That's an icky thing to comply with, especially in the unwarranted cases of high-performing employees who lost out simply because "someone has to take the 5." Maybe I hired you, told you all year you were on target, ran your '3' rating up the flagpole only to have it come down a '5'. Maybe this happens to several people on my team because while I'm good at motivating you, I'm weak at protecting you. For each person my choice is to refuse the directive, become the 'problem child' among my peers, and risk getting 5'ed myself next year. Or I could swallow my integrity "just this once", retreat to my back-yard man-cave in Sammamish, and write about how you are the weakest link in the 'comments' section of your doc. Then I'll spend our review discussion hammering home how lame you are (that's me 'owning' the rating my superiors handed you) instead of reminiscing about all the great stuff you delivered for me all year.
So if your review doc reads like a character assassination, it could be your manager's way of soothing themselves for perpetuating the lie that your high performance earned you a 5. If you want it changed, pursue that before signing. The money won't change, but that's probably not what's motivating you anyway...
And if you got promoted to management this year, seriously think how you'll handle this integrity challenge we face at review time. I'm physically sick about it. I used to think I could withstand this long enough to pay off my house, this year I'm not so sure. And I can't see how a system that crushes managers to crush IC's helps us innovate or delight customers.
I have read or scanned most of these comments, wonder why there are not many 2's?
I've checked few historical numbers: for L62, 85% of stock target in 2009 supposed to be $15,3K. Yet now in 2011 130% of the target stock for L62 seems to be $14.300 only. If you calculate 130% against 2009's target, the stock awanrd for this year should has been $23.4K. So the difference is $10K net loss for me and possibly around the same % for most of you.
I've been paid less now and will be given monthly a increase (par stock to base adjustment) which is not equal either. Got only 7K adjustment.
Hate such small games. And if you let the company run by finance people (and not engineers) this is what's going to happen...
Are these the right options for 5s:
1) Leave before they make you leave
- the benefit is that you were not let go. This seems to be what MSFT wants, least cost to them.
2) Wait until they let you go and since your underperformed it will be a fire not lay-off so no severence. Who besides unemployment will ever know the truth? (besides MSFT and your own family/friends).
3) Try and change the tide with good work and politicking.
Is option 3 a joke?
Am I missing any other options?
Age discrimination -
http://www.undercoverlawyer.com/video-stopping-age-discrimination-how-two-women-did-it/
Does anyone know where salary ranges are posted? I remember seeing this in hrweb sometime ago, but can't find it now. for e.g., L63 - $xxxk to $yyyk, like that for each level, (until L67 i guess). Is this information still around somewhere? If so, can you post it?
Also when you give notice, and state you want to be relieved in 2 weeks, does that 2 weeks eat in to your accrued vacation?
thanks
All of this being laid at the feet of SteveB and LisaB. I blame KevinT.
"OK, new 65 here and worries about this. Could you explain the 150%? Thanks!"
"Next year senior band bonus and stock rises to %150 of what it is today. This year a L65 who receives a 4 gets the same % compensation as a L64 who gets a 3. Next year it changes, you're better off as a L64 with a 3 than a L65 with a 4. Considering the brutal competition in the Princpal band in many orgs, you may be better off not being promoted. Don't count on HR figuring out the glitch."
I am a principal with my current employer.
Going for an interview for a senior position in MS on next week. Seems like they will offer me a level 64 if everything will be fine.
Should I ask about L65 consider all comments that L64 is more likely to be better in term of compensation and that it is very hard to reach L66 from 65?
Any advices?
> To my friends that are still in b28 - get out while you can. If you can.
Which group? Ummm....manager?
Is it true that if you get a mid-year promo, you automatically get a 3? I'm pissed with this score given I feel I kicked ass all year.
-----------------------------
It happened to me too. But the explanation was we calibrated 61 and 62 separately. So new 62 can't get better than 3. Don't like 3, will leave MS soon.
You were both lied to, I certainly hope those messages didn't come from your managers. If they did, that is reason enough to look for a new role under a different manager whom you can trust. Not to say that you still wouldn't have gotten a 3, but at least you'd hear the truth and not some BS cover story.
As I understand it if you remain a L62 for more than 60 months you should expect to get managed out, even if you are performing well at your level because you show no growth potential.
L63 seems to be the magic hurdle that you need to cross to be considered a viable long term contributor to the company.
Thank you for the reply. If you are correct then a lot of SDET ICs in STB are in deep trouble. Approxmately 10% make it to level 63 or above. There are many that are "stuck" at level 62 including myself.
A question to all reading this: Will changing teams or orgs help someone move beyond level 62?
There is some hope for people who have gotten a 4 or 5. I know of two people in the Windows team that got a U/10 a few years back. They managed to recover in the following year. So leaving MS isn't the only option for people in this situation.
Jack Welch's idea of annually removing the bottom 10% has been shown to be an emperor with no clothes.
My husband worked at GE for a few years, and his division never fired the bottom 10%. Maybe this made sense for manufacturing floors, but not for trained professionals. Jack was famous for seeding misinformation.
This whole debacle is making me sick. I used to LOVE this company, and worked my ass off for what I considered fair rewards. Now the rewards are slim, and there's no correlation between effort/impact and reward. We've become a company of brown-nosers.
Our current review system is a failed experiment. I would appreciate it more if we were closing open headcount, but I'm not seeing that. The net is that we'll be hiring 20% externally every year...unless things change, get ready for a slow death in product quality.
Suggestion to HR: Leave peer review open to ANYONE to submit, not just the individuals you cherry-pick.
The biggest back-stabber in our group got glowing peer reviews from his friends. Those of us who actually tried to solicit meaningful reviews from key collaborators would have been better served getting our buddies on the list. If you leave peer review open, you'll learn a lot more than you expected.
Out of all of this post review thrashing, there are some obvious trends coming to light. I have validated the surprise 4 or 5 rating with several co-workers:
-Higher leveled employees targeted (without cause)
-Some of our best and brightest (super smart people with proven capability over time) were targeted
-Tenured employees targeted > if you have more than 10years under your belt, you are in the crosshairs
-HR does not care anymore about the integrity of M2 or higher leaders (don't believe a word anyone in the mgmt. team tells you)
-Proven talent critical to company is now demoralized and demotivated
=Performance Mgmt. System that is completely broken > MSFT does not focus on employee strengths, only weakness
Good job KT and LB > I can't wait to go work for the nearest competitor or IT shop where I will have "ABM" tatoo'd on my arm - Anything But Microsoft or should I say MicroSick? D-O-N-E, done!
Heard rumors of a secret RIF... Is this true?
WTF? isn't that obviously retaliatory? I mean, you would think that a 4 would be hard to argue, since you just left a group doing a pretty good job, with multiple patents under your belt. But to get a 5? New manager is absolutely stunned.
Someone must have missed day 1 of the MSFT-102 class. It is very well known not safe to change teams at that time of the year, because the temptation to give the poor scores to people who have already left or who have indicated an intention to leave is simply too strong for many Micorosft managers. After all, who wouldnthey want to displease? A body they still need on deck and want to keep around, or someone they know won't be around in a few months to do work for them to meet the next FY's goals?
Sometimes people get lucky and if in the situation you described, the former team's manager honors their word. But that does not happen all the time, and may even not happen most of the time.
Anonymous wrote regarding tech writers making 6 figures,
Wondering too. Majority just have English or Arts related degree (eg, politics, marketing, tech writing...). If they work for newspapers or publishing house, their salary will be way way lower.
Let me tell you something you REALLY would not want to hear, then. There have existed tech writers at Microsoft whose annual total compensation surpassed 150K during some very good years. Who were previously hard core devs, who merely wanted to exercise a different part of their brain for a while. And who looked askance at peers whose backgrounds were far less technical, too. These people would be more likely to go to Google or Amazon than to Simon and Schuster, if looking for work.
The system has to cater for both types of writers. Many tech writers at MSFT do not earn much, if anything, over 6 figures. In general, the greater the degree of technical skill, the greater the complexity of the work they are asked to do, and likely the greater the salary.
The writer with the comp package mentioned above represented the company in some rather intense, highly visible public situations in addition to "writing", and pulled nightmare hours of the sort that would make devs who joined the company after the big win2k dev push cringe in disbelief. He could also walk into a meeting with architects who were annoyed to have to humor a tech writer, and have them asking him for advice by the end of the meeting.
It's often unwise to judge a book (writer) by its cover (title).
For those of you commenting on Tech Writers, L62, etc. remember that Bob Kelly, CVP of Windows Azure Marketing, has a doctorate in English literature...
REALLY glad I left MS two months ago. My blood pressure has already dropped 10 points. I can only imagine what this review cycle would have been like - probably with me on the street.
To my friends that are still in b28 - get out while you can. If you can.
---
As a former 10+ year softie (layoff 5/09) I really feel for you guys - many of you are getting the shaft. There is life after MS, and the grass if significantly greener. Good luck.
---
Hear, hear! Run, do not walk. Especially if you're in Windows.
I left the company when I saw the writing on the wall after last year's annual review and couldn't be happier. I put up with MSFT review bullshit for over a decade. When my management was slowly filling up with more and more Peter Principle examples, I decided my self-respect was worth more than the stress and frustration. Especially since the stock is no longer a motivation, and the health plan is literally only useful if you have a) a life-threatening illness or b) need medication for all the conditions that working at MSFT causes.
I found a decent job, with a lot less stress and more reasonable managers, within a month. I lived in fear for years - how will I start over, how will I find something in this economy, what if I'm unemployed for months or longer like some of my friends - and I wish I'd gotten out sooner.
Please, if you have any sort of concerns like what gets posted here, run.
@JackWelch's clothes: Spot on. The problem with so many companies, and the evidence that real leadership has taked a back seat to reading the cliff notes of Straight from the Gut is that 1) GE doesn't fire the bottom 10%. You might not work for GE in a year, but the goal of the program is to make sure that if you get a "C" in one year, you won't get one next year. Whether that is by uping your game or internal transfer to another role you can be more successful at, it's not an automatic rif position.
2) GE is unique in that most of it's positions have specific, tangible (it's primarily a manufacturing company) targets. In services, our UBI is this way. Too many companies have tried to adopt this review system but how do you really measure the work of a dev, PM, consultant, etc. There are just too many subjective commitments that end up in review systems like the one we are living with.
my .02
Ballmer just sent out one of his "Rah rah things are great and exciting and blah blah blah e-mails." I deleted it immediately as I always do, but a co-worker pointed out that they forgot to remove the actual author's e-mail signature:
Frank Shaw | Microsoft Corporate Communications |
L59
Promo to L60
Bucket - 2
Merit - 3.9%
Stock - 130%
Bonus - 13%
Stock2$$$ - $1500
R&D - 12%
New Base Pay $102k
L59
Promo to L60
Bucket - 2
Merit - 3.9%
Stock - 130%
Bonus - 13%
Stock2$$$ - $1500
R&D - 12%
New Base Pay $102k
Anon @ 10:34 on Sept 13: Boss in question not an H1B or similar, but he's definitely gunning for certain people in the department and I am not surprised to be one of them. Thanks much for the advice, and I promise you I'm working on it. Even the thought of disembarking from the clown car is putting a spring in my step. Good luck to you all...
What is the salary range for level 65? Avg?
Okay, enough review mails...
http://allthingsd.com/20110916/steve-ballmers-first-time-on-windows-8-comic/
all my friends are leaving and nobody want to join our group internally :(
L63@Windows
Bucket: 5
Merit: 0%
Promo: 0%
Bonus: $0
Stock: $0
Midyear: meets expectations.
No warning. Bolt from blue.
Reason cited: curve
How much time do I have?
Post a Comment