tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post111916694931038467..comments2024-03-18T12:52:48.117-07:00Comments on Mini-Microsoft: Microsoft's 3.0 (or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love The Curve)Who da'Punkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18205453956191063442noreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-34506753314263860712010-07-07T08:52:06.378-07:002010-07-07T08:52:06.378-07:00Hi,
a question is mandatory in MS sign my own per...Hi, <br />a question is mandatory in MS sign my own performance review and what consequences may be if I don't sign? <br />I'm working in Italy<br /><br />ThanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1156290013865889972006-08-22T16:40:00.000-07:002006-08-22T16:40:00.000-07:00Some books you should be reading - hell, buy a cop...Some books you should be reading - hell, buy a copy of each and leave them lying around for others to take! Repeat as necessary.<BR/><BR/>"Punished by Rewards" by Alfie Kohn. ISBN 0618001816<BR/><BR/>"Abolishing Performance Appraisals: Why They Backfire and What to Do Instead" by Tom Coens and Mary Jenkins. ISBN 1576752003Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1149444805139725772006-06-04T11:13:00.000-07:002006-06-04T11:13:00.000-07:00I stumbled across this blog by chance. It brought...I stumbled across this blog by chance. It brought back some old, very bad, memories. I never received less than a 4.0 at MS myself. Still, I had to give out a few 3.0s because of the rules and I did not believe in most of them. For just one 3.0 that I had to give the employee and I agreed and we moved on and he is still there almost 7 years later. <BR/><BR/>If I had to say what limits Microsoft from being a truly great company this would be in the top three list. Consider that if shareholders were doing reviews they would probably give Billg and SteveB 3.0s (or possibly worse) these days. The problem with the system is that it defocuses management from what I consider a primary job--achieving superior results by finding and exploiting the strengths of every individual but then MS tends to hold the employee solely responsible for his or her development relieving the manager from any real role in the outcome. <BR/><BR/>Also, the system amounts to a self-admission of poor hiring a significant percentage of the time. Shouldn't managers who hire greater than average 3.0s during their tenure be automatically in the running for 3.0s? Of course, the system basically prevents managers from looking bad by curving the employees and thus there is no warning bell that perhaps a concentration of 3.0s has something to do with bad management. (Each manager typically only has one or two 3.0s.) <BR/><BR/>Just one of the system abuses involves giving 3.0s to those who are about to transfer from one team to another. I saw a blatant example of this in my tenure. I was thrilled to have this person come to my team the entire time they worked for me, yet, they had a 3.0 transferring in, which left more bonus for those in his old team.<BR/><BR/>Undoubtedly, the MS personnel problems begin way back in the chain with the hiring process and the promotion process but that is the topic for another discussion. For now, let's just say that in some ways MS is playing out the real-life version of the movies "Office Space" and "In Good Company". It is all very unfortunate for everyone. Very high net profits have masked some problems that may well be the complete undoing of MS in the days ahead unless they are addressed soon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1148487620615633482006-05-24T09:20:00.000-07:002006-05-24T09:20:00.000-07:00I work for a company that uses this same rating sy...I work for a company that uses this same rating system, and I was a manager for this company for several years. What I never understood was if you have 7 out of 10 low performers, isn't it the manager who failed? This idea, of course, never sunk in. It is the managers job to coach, mentor, or replace low performers with those who do the job they are hired to do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1143776007755640312006-03-30T19:33:00.000-08:002006-03-30T19:33:00.000-08:00I worked in Europe for a couple of companies (most...I worked in Europe for a couple of companies (mostly in Germany). The standard of living in Germany is about the same as in the US yet companies don’t do perf reviews.<BR/><BR/>My recommendation: If you can't implement a just system (which I think can't be done) get rid of performance reviews altogether. Everybody will sleep easier.<BR/><BR/>Another thing: I’ve seen a lot of bad performers in my time at MS (believe me – we do NOT hire the best), people who would not survive a week in a German company, and they definitely need to be weeded out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1143568502663387132006-03-28T09:55:00.000-08:002006-03-28T09:55:00.000-08:00Wow - That's a mouthful-quote-If I can give one wo...Wow - That's a mouthful<BR/><BR/>-quote-<BR/>If I can give one word of advice to folks working in Corporate. Stay at corporate. The field is a joke. SMS&P, public sector, etc. these groups are dead and asleep. I wonder what they do? <BR/>-end quote-<BR/><BR/>The field sells the products corporate develops. You think anyone's going to buy our stuff without having someone knowledgeable who can sell it?<BR/><BR/>TSP's are the backbone of this company's sales force. Most everyone else is overhead. There isn't a piece of enterprise software sold which isn't influenced by the work of a TS.<BR/><BR/>The field is the best place to be with regards to reviews and leveling up.<BR/><BR/>In my five years at MSFT, my review scores have been 3.5, 3.5, 4.0, 4.0, 4.0. I've received three promotions since I joined.<BR/><BR/>*My* advice to people in corporate, start shipping some products on time or get out. If you can't ship your products on time, you deserve a low review score.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1143419701374259552006-03-26T16:35:00.000-08:002006-03-26T16:35:00.000-08:00My final review at msft was a 3.0. My lifetime re...My final review at msft was a 3.0. My lifetime reviews were as follows: 3.5, 4.5, 3.5,3.5, and of course the 3.0. I did not deserve the 3.0. I outperformed my entire group on every metric. My manager and I did not get along. I have always gotten along with my manager in my 15 years of dev. I left Microsoft because of this manager and the fear that he would do more damage to a steller career at Microsoft and outside of Microsoft. <BR/><BR/>I have loved Microsoft since I was in college and that was almost 20 years ago. I knew then what this company could accomplish and that it would change the world. But with managers like this and due to a company that allows this kind of management to go unchecked - I just couldnt stomach staying any longer. His manager was a weinie, she had no backbone. <BR/><BR/>If I can give one word of advice to folks working in Corporate. Stay at corporate. The field is a joke. SMS&P, public sector, etc. these groups are dead and asleep. I wonder what they do? You could terminate all employees that have a Partner something something in their title and Microsoft would not lose a CAL sale. These people are completely useless. (Partner TS, Partner EM, Etc.) <BR/><BR/>There are so many great people in Microsoft and I was so honored to be a part of something that I personally loved. I now work for a competitor and want to take marketshare away from Microsoft. I think about it all the time. Microsoft is building an army of people that will want to do the same thing I do- take it down. I would love to see a MSFT stock price of $10-15 (believe me it is just around the corner). It wouldnt take much: lose 10% of the office productivity suite business and bye bye street!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1143230317200224702006-03-24T11:58:00.000-08:002006-03-24T11:58:00.000-08:00"B) Employees are shown 7 peoples' input vs. 1, th..."B) Employees are shown 7 peoples' input vs. 1, therby increasing likelihood of equity."<BR/><BR/>Won't solve it. We do that here now, and it has degenerated into a popularity contest. Everyone is vying for the top-of-the-curve rankings, so they're not going to rate you highly if you're competition and not a buddy. I have had directly conflicting remarks from peers and also between managers on my official review. These conflicting statements are on file. Let the buyer beware: that doesn't disqualify them as input - it is assumed that the one implying a lower rating is the correct one. This is scientifically very poor - basically any mark outside the margin to the low side is included in the equation, but any corresponding one to the high side is tossed. It's like keeping all marks negative of the std. deviation, but tossing those above it...and then recalculating the mean.<BR/><BR/>Bottom line - you don't need more people involved. You need objective, measurable criteria. Period. Anything that cannot be substantiated that way should either not including in a rating system, or should be assigned the same neutral value and weight for everyone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1142830735945576632006-03-19T20:58:00.000-08:002006-03-19T20:58:00.000-08:00Comment:7 yrs @MS. Used to be very agile company,...Comment:<BR/>7 yrs @MS. Used to be very agile company, now law of large numbers kicking in at all levels. Start-up feeling long gone... :(<BR/><BR/>Proposed Fix for Review:<BR/>Review process could be fixed with MS' Core Competencies being thoughtfully applied as an overlay to the job ladders while using 360 or similar feedback from Manager (1-person @33%), Employee (1-person@33%), and 'Others' (about 6 other persons mutually agreed upon by both manager and employee@34%; only aggregate score shown). <BR/>'Others' targeted to be composed of those folks really in touch with the employee most frequently as a course of daily work/projects.<BR/><BR/>Display Output:<BR/>Radar chart with 3 data series.<BR/><BR/>Display Input:<BR/>All questions for each Core Competencies weighted by important to the 'Waterline' for the job in question.<BR/><BR/>Frequency:<BR/>Twice a year, <BR/>+Baseline@honeymoon,<BR/>+FinalState@exit.<BR/><BR/>Note that each open position should have a target Radar chart already built and posted with the job description to support 'Job Waterline'.<BR/><BR/>Reasoning:<BR/>A) This allows any disconnect between Manager and Employee to be mediated by Others' score.<BR/>B) Employees are shown 7 peoples' input vs. 1, therby increasing likelihood of equity.<BR/>C) Manager gets another (likely more balanced) view.<BR/>D) When cut/exit is needed, data shows why using Position Waterline.<BR/>E) Equity, Accountability, and Liability are closer to balance.<BR/>F) Employee KNOWS the where the bar is located (KEY FACTOR). :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1142353727300735902006-03-14T08:28:00.000-08:002006-03-14T08:28:00.000-08:00A quick thought - why aren't such objective scores...A quick thought - why aren't such objective scores combined with a subjective evaluation of you compared to your peers?<BR/><BR/>For example - give each person the score they deserve - and then rank them. So in department A, you have 3 4.0's, but to differentiate between the 4.0 and to give the score some context, you rank each person in it from 1-3 to illustrate how other people in a similar environment achieve.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1142313415295462212006-03-13T21:16:00.000-08:002006-03-13T21:16:00.000-08:00I didn't read through all the rest of the comments...I didn't read through all the rest of the comments above, so apologies if this is redundant.<BR/><BR/>The review system at Microsoft is specifically designed to force out a certain percentage of people every year. In theory, this will get rid of the dead wood and other underperformers. Undoubtedly, there are some of these folks who need to be kicked out. But nowhere near the numbers that are ACTUALLY kicked out. The real reasons behind aggressively reviewing folks out lies in primarily three areas. One, it forces people here on H1-B's to accept a lower quality of life than anyone else would be willing to accept. "What, you don't like working that many hours? Well, we'll review your ass out too and guess what? The economy is in the dumps and you're on the way back to India buddy!" The fear of getting deported is really a powerful motivator. Two, with the economy going in the dumps, MS somehow avoided laying anyone off! Well, not quite... they just quitely reviewed people out. Funny too how every once in a while MS announces massive hiring in the Puget Sound region and yet the headcount hasn't moved much in years...<BR/><BR/>Third, MS is "trading up." When the market tanked, the tables turned! No more signing bonuses and other nonsense... Talented people were being left high and dry as their startups went belly up. MS decided they wanted to try and absorb some of this talent. Of course, they needed to keep labor costs down. Showing loads and loads of "loyalty" to their employees, they started culling out perfectly good employees for folks who "might" be better.<BR/><BR/>In 2001 when I left MS, managers at my level were ordered to cull 10% of their team (composed primarily of leaf node SDET's). This was true across the board in my product group. Instead of standing up and just saying, hey, we have to make cuts (which would have been politically untenable considering their billions in the bank), they decided to trump up reviews and force people out that way. As a result, many folks were put out for having done nothing wrong other than being unpopular or less than stellar on a team of very stellar folks. At the same time, they were told they were fucking up.... This, coupled with the deportation fear coupled with the stock price tanking made for a really really shitty work situation morale-wise. I gave up and left.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1142293661023486462006-03-13T15:47:00.000-08:002006-03-13T15:47:00.000-08:00- Why have a 1 to 5 bell curve if all that ever ma...- Why have a 1 to 5 bell curve if all that ever matters is a 3.0 to 4.5?<BR/>- Why is 3.0 consider bad, isn't it defined as "Meets Expectations"? If they wanted everyone to "Exceed Expectations why isn't that the crest of the bell curve?<BR/>- If you want to attract and hire top talent that are accustomed to scoring in the top 5% percentile and to making a 4.0 on 4.0 scale then why subject them to an environment in which they're consistently reminded their average amongst their peers? Why not simply reward them for being who/what they are?<BR/>- By force ranking people you are essentially going to "piss off" about 50% of your workforce<BR/> <BR/>There's no need to force rank people, you can still have them do a self-review against a set of written expectations and then give them candid, written and verbal feedback on their performance, clearly reinforcing their successes and helping them to learn and improve in their areas of weakness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1142121300928820352006-03-11T15:55:00.000-08:002006-03-11T15:55:00.000-08:00I am employee at Microsoft and I would like to rai...I am employee at Microsoft and I would like to raise one more issue -this is about my Manager -<BR/>basically he gave me the permission to interivew and after I got selected in another team the current manager bascially gave a bad review to the potentially new manager, there by killing my propect of moving to the new team.<BR/> <BR/> This was totally demoralizing and the way I look at is my manager back stabbed my carrer prospect.<BR/> <BR/> Few things I would like to see changes happen -<BR/> a) If the Manager is giving permission to interview that means<BR/>the emloyee is totally capable of doing things.<BR/>b) If for some reason Manager thinks the Employee is not ready then he should not give a permission to interview and have a talk with the Employee and explain why he would like to see more of the Employee..<BR/><BR/> I love this company but some of the Middle managers totally suck.<BR/> this is a total mis-management.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1142038065511012952006-03-10T16:47:00.000-08:002006-03-10T16:47:00.000-08:00Did you folks (M$) happen to recently hire a top H...Did you folks (M$) happen to recently hire a top HR person who used to run compensation at Bell Labs? Aside from using a different numbering scheme, the system you're now experiencing is what we used 15 years ago. The one thing we did have that you might look forward to is "the green book" - a scatter plot of salary verses years of profession experience. Sadly the bottom line is that any big company develops a politically charged as well as policially correct compensation scheme. If you think forced distributions of rating is bad based on "performance", wait till the distributions are also forced based on gender and affirmative action classifications. The whole process becomes solving simultaneous linear systems by committee and the results are truely ugly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1141963469596711852006-03-09T20:04:00.000-08:002006-03-09T20:04:00.000-08:00I was recruited to MS from a great school and put ...I was recruited to MS from a great school and put a lot of passion into the product I was working on. I worked for a well-functioning team that was full of other smart and hard-working individuals, many of whom had been there for many years. When I got my first 3.0 review score I realized that it was only my first year and that my manager was correct in the things he said I should work on for the next year. (It would have helped if he had been able to lead better during my inaugural year, but that's another story.)<BR/><BR/>The next year I did every single thing he laid out for me and more. I had great features to show for it. My score? Another 3.0 of course. And in the discussion about it, my manager explained that it was a high performing team where it was very hard to get a good score, but he wouldn't completely admit that I deserved better.<BR/><BR/>I was definitely demotivated. I felt as if all that I invested in my work was for not. Combined with some other personal reasons I realized it was time for me to leave the company. Shame really. I really enjoyed the work I was doing.<BR/><BR/>Now I'm at a new company and lo and behold kicking ass. Perhaps the problem wasn't me after all.<BR/><BR/>I wish someone at Microsoft would wake up and really change the system. The problem is that those at the top are the folks who did earn great review scores and are the most likely to think that the folks getting low scores must be a burden on the company.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1127540328604642012005-09-23T22:38:00.000-07:002005-09-23T22:38:00.000-07:00Gonna expand on this a bit ... What is important i...Gonna expand on this a bit ... <BR/><BR/>What is important in the numbers game is not your strategy to get a higher number, but your decision as to how much you are going to let the process alter your thinking. I remember when I was in kollege, seeing a woman burst into tears when she got a score lower than 4.0 on a test, and seeing people puking before finals. I don't know or care if these people figured out how to pull straight A's; the point is they invested too much emotionally in a system that was eating them alive. <BR/><BR/>Microsoft needs pluggers: steady, productive people. If you show up and find a way to make yourself useful, they are not going to get rid of you. The company is old and ossified enough these days to make a hell-bent charge up the ladder foolish, unless you are naturally a Type A. Go for it. The bottom line is that they need you to be productive, and you can always move groups or companies if you don't like your score. You find a way to be productive, and let them find a way to cook the books to keep you. And don't sweat the numbers if you can help it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1127539886652538632005-09-23T22:31:00.000-07:002005-09-23T22:31:00.000-07:00All this reminds me of skool. I am an ex-Softie, g...All this reminds me of skool. <BR/><BR/>I am an ex-Softie, going back soon (contemplating an offer). I have a kid coming and need the stability. <BR/><BR/>I hated skool because everyone was hell bent on playing these numbers games. What everyone seems to miss is that the point is to keep you hustling for that number. The number itself means little; what matters is the heirarchy they create. There are those who kiss ass to get numbers, and those who make others kiss ass by handing out numbers. <BR/><BR/>The numbers themselves have no meaning. It's all a shell game, really.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1127377328691351802005-09-22T01:22:00.000-07:002005-09-22T01:22:00.000-07:00lol working at Microsoft sounds like playing a Bat...lol working at Microsoft sounds like playing a Battle.Net ladder.<BR/><BR/>Suckers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1127313739247514772005-09-21T07:42:00.000-07:002005-09-21T07:42:00.000-07:00The most demotivating thing for me (when I used to...The most demotivating thing for me (when I used to work for Microsoft) was that leads would make up their minds on the stack ranking before they had even asked their reports to write reviews.<BR/><BR/>So, while they claimed that the stack ranking was based on our performance, they didn't even pretend to listen to what we have to say about our performance before the decision is made. To add to the insult, my last lead couldn't even get his head straight to understand what I was working on. I had to teach him the context of the work I was doing so often that I eventually just drew it all out and left it on my whiteboard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1127284497506638042005-09-20T23:34:00.000-07:002005-09-20T23:34:00.000-07:00Don't be a fool. There are a lot of other places t...Don't be a fool. There are a lot of other places to work. If you aren't happy, leave. It may seem scary, but it's worth it. Many people change jobs, and so can you.<BR/><BR/>Falling in love with some giant corporation is dumb; do you think that they love you back?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1127190582184338542005-09-19T21:29:00.000-07:002005-09-19T21:29:00.000-07:00your signature is your privilige. No one can force...your signature is your privilige. No one can force you to sign anything. Now there maybe consequences associated with not signing but if you in principle don't agree with what you are being asked to sign, then don't sign it. Sure HR will feed you BS that the signature only acknowledges your receipt of the review doc...but your signature is yours alone..don't sign it if you dont' agree with it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1127170911963616322005-09-19T16:01:00.000-07:002005-09-19T16:01:00.000-07:00I was told to my face in my mid-year review that I...I was told to my face in my mid-year review that I was tracking to a 4.0. My review score? 3.0. The review discussion was the absolute definition of the pot calling the kettle black, but there is literally NOTHING you can do about it at that point. The person who wrote my review could have said that I enjoy urinating on the carpet in the cafeteria, and I would have still had to sign the review. Welcome to Microsoft!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1126955326445524002005-09-17T04:08:00.000-07:002005-09-17T04:08:00.000-07:00http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilb...http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20050917.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1124867507196970802005-08-24T00:11:00.000-07:002005-08-24T00:11:00.000-07:00Thanks for this blog! I've been feeling very frust...Thanks for this blog! I've been feeling very frustrated and this is one of those things we aren't supposed to talk about with peers.<BR/><BR/>I have been at Microsoft for 5 years and have a 3.5 average. I just changed groups for the first time in my career because in my last group I was working 70 hour weeks for 9 months straight because my boss was unable to scope work properly. <BR/><BR/>When I tried to help him understand that I was stretched too thin and we needed more employees, he indicated that I needed to just work faster. I was an expert on my product because I had worked on it for 7 years, since its inception, and I understood our customers needs very well. One of the problems we had was that we had a couple of people on the team who were working on team projects and neglecting their core responsibilities. The team projects gained them visibility among other managers on the team which resulted in higher review scores for them. I was left with an ever increasing workload because of the core work that these employees let slide in order to do the high profile team projects (these projects benefitted the larger team but had no impact on fulfilling the needs of our customers). I was actually harrassed by one of these high profile employees as "hiding out in my office" because I was busy working instead of working on team projects.<BR/><BR/>In the mid-year review, I was told that I was getting a 3.0 because other team members were working on these team projects. As a result of this, I ended up getting so fed up that I transferred to another team. I left the last team months ago but they still haven't been able to replace me because they are having problems finding people with my skill level and expertise on that technology--also, it's a technology area that is intimidating to a lot of people so it's difficult to find people willing to take the time to learn it.<BR/><BR/>I just don't think the stack rank system works well. When I came to this new team, I discovered that on my last team I was doing the same amount of work as assigned to two people on my present team (this is probably good for future reviews but the work is too easy and slightly boring for me on this team).<BR/><BR/>I really don't understand how this situation could be considered good for customers or good for future growth of the company. I really miss my previous technology and wish I could work on it. But to stay on that team was sending a message that it's okay to take advantage of me, which isn't going to happen.<BR/><BR/>You seem to accept the stack ranking system, but I don't. I want to be judged by my contributions to customers and the product, not by my ability to butt-kiss leads. <BR/><BR/>There is also the problem with team members competing with each other on teams. By making team members compete with each other, we weaken teams. On my last team, team members would withhold information from other team members in order to slow them down in their work and make it easier to beat in the stack rankings (as I said, there was a lot of work and any delay in getting things done could impact the deadline).<BR/><BR/>I don't think the merit system is working. I'm not sure what they could replace it with, but making employees compete against each other certainly is not the way to go.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1123775275418521792005-08-11T08:47:00.000-07:002005-08-11T08:47:00.000-07:00I have a question for you softies. Friends who wo...I have a question for you softies. Friends who work there told me that in the summer of 02 Microsoft went after the long time employees giving them an either get promoted or get fired message. This concerns me as a stockholder that Microsoft would participate in blatenly illegal age discrimination tactics. What gives with this?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com