Me too. After I started attending performance reviews I realized how the information actually gets used. There's a tradeoff between how much we write and how much actually gets read
Interesting! A couple of places I looked up while making mine indicated that the self review is a sort of reflection. So, the good, the bad and the why/how need to be there.
This post seems more like a condensed achievements list. Is that a Meta thing or a big tech thing?
> This post seems more like a condensed achievements list. Is that a Meta thing or a big tech thing?
Yeah this is for common big company processes. When I say "self-review" here it's just a condensed achievements list that your manager will use to argue for what rating you deserve.
A self-review for reflecting on what went well and didn't go well is different but also has its value outside of these company performance review processes.
Dec 24, 2023·edited Dec 24, 2023Liked by Ryan Peterman
The way I frame "bad" is not a list of big mistakes, but the growth areas I'll focus on in the next year.
This way we are not framing as the engineer not being competent in this skill (a people problem), but as an area to work on during the next year and work with the manager to find opportunities (something to work on).
For example, I have put as growth areas my interest in working on technically complex problems after a year of "busywork"
At least that's the way of framing Amazon's self-review. We have 2 blurbs, one for strengths, and one for growth areas.
Interesting!
I think the key here is not to confuse the notes we collect for ourselves in our brag doc and how we communicate those achievements in a self-review.
The "before" format can be useful for ourselves to remember what we did in a project 10 months ago
Agreed! This thinking is for the review that we communicate to others
Being a bit more verbose for personal notes is okay since the same constraints don't apply
Really insightful! I was used to write plenty of information to provide as much as context possible
Me too. After I started attending performance reviews I realized how the information actually gets used. There's a tradeoff between how much we write and how much actually gets read
Interesting! A couple of places I looked up while making mine indicated that the self review is a sort of reflection. So, the good, the bad and the why/how need to be there.
This post seems more like a condensed achievements list. Is that a Meta thing or a big tech thing?
> This post seems more like a condensed achievements list. Is that a Meta thing or a big tech thing?
Yeah this is for common big company processes. When I say "self-review" here it's just a condensed achievements list that your manager will use to argue for what rating you deserve.
A self-review for reflecting on what went well and didn't go well is different but also has its value outside of these company performance review processes.
The way I frame "bad" is not a list of big mistakes, but the growth areas I'll focus on in the next year.
This way we are not framing as the engineer not being competent in this skill (a people problem), but as an area to work on during the next year and work with the manager to find opportunities (something to work on).
For example, I have put as growth areas my interest in working on technically complex problems after a year of "busywork"
At least that's the way of framing Amazon's self-review. We have 2 blurbs, one for strengths, and one for growth areas.