Hacker News Reader

Comment by ikurei | Hacker News Reader

A related question: Should you do them? They don't seem useful in tiny companies, where you can just see how everyone is doing, apart from informal "What is worrying you" conversations. How big a company you have to be for them to be useful/necessary?

View on HN

It's hard not to have some sort of review process if you want to be able to fire someone. If anyone challenges their dismissal for performance reasons, you'll want a record of the "conversations" (1) you had. This is why a lot of review processes include some sort of sign-off by the parties involved.

(1) Scare quotes around "conversations" because I've never seen management approach an underperforming employee and then realize that they had a big part in that. Conversations tend to be more two-way than that.

In our situation, which is a relatively small company, it's used to keep people energized, focused and well... happy. Without it, we had regular team meetings where people talked about frustrations they had (and it exploded at times).

I don't think having it around as way to fire someone is the right approach.

I'm a huge fan of more informal one-on-one meetings. To the point where I will consider a move if I'm not getting enough time with my management. I don't consider those "performance reviews" though.

I have found that the existence of a formal performance review program is a good proxy for a company's structure having grown and/or calcified to the point that I would no longer be happy to work there. If the startup I'm currently working for someday grows to that point, I'll take it as my cue to start looking for another startup.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com