Don't let this Tweet get lost in the shuffle.
View: https://twitter.com/BrianBirming/status/1617688557367488512?s=20&t=xzHxosnJG4hXwKRn1XEhIA
View: https://twitter.com/BrianBirming/status/1617688557367488512?s=20&t=xzHxosnJG4hXwKRn1XEhIA
This guy clearly states nobody from Bloomberg ever attempted to reach out from him. I trust Bloomberg's scoops 100%, but it is super shitty to lie about reaching out to the person you wrote a story about.
We had a 0-4 rating system at a job I once held. 0 lowest, 4 highest. (Not people ranking, just how you were scored on how well you're working)
I was in my performance review going over the scores with my manager and I received a 2 for something that was an absolute yes or no type of thing. I think it was if all of my shots and what not were updated for the year and I was fully compliant (I was working in a hospital system). If you missed even one you don't meet the standard.
Me: Why is this a 2?
Manager: Because the requirement was satisfied.
Me: Well sure, but shouldn't that be a 4?
Manager: No, that's not how this works.
Me: But it brings my score average down. If this is an 'on or off' scenario, shouldn't "on" be a 4 if "off" is a 0?
Manager: We really just don't give out 4s.
Me: * Blank stare *
Other posts in this thread have already proven that wrong but even if they hadn't, why would that be relevant? Ybarra worked at Microsoft for 20 years, that's clearly where he got it.From the article.
"Microsoft Corp., which plans to acquire Activision Blizzard for $69 billion pending regulatory review, put an end to its own stack-ranking program in 2013."
While not entirely the same...the way Retail works to hit metrics (% of orders picked on time, % orders packed on time, % items pulled from the back room etc) regardless of what everyone needs to go through and what falls to the side in order to meet those metrics is absolutely hot garbage. As far as I know we never had quotas, but I also didn't have enough direct reports to be able to have percentages like that.I really hate that whole "exceeds expectations" "meets" "developing" crap of putting everyone in boxes because a quota needs to be met. In one company the CEO made a big deal of "I'm not telling anyone that they have quotas" conveniently leaving out that every department had a quota so that means quotas were pushed all the way down. They wouldn't let you have a team of all "exceeds" because that would mean some other team would have all "developing" and at times it became who can politic the best for their employees. Stack ranking sucks.
The manager heard and suspects that it comes from above Ybarra so why are you pinning it on ybarra lolOther posts in this thread have already proven that wrong but even if they hadn't, why would that be relevant? Ybarra worked at Microsoft for 20 years, that's clearly where he got it.
We had a 0-4 rating system at a job I once held. 0 lowest, 4 highest. (Not people ranking, just how you were scored on how well you're working)
I was in my performance review going over the scores with my manager and I received a 2 for something that was an absolute yes or no type of thing. I think it was if all of my shots and what not were updated for the year and I was fully compliant (I was working in a hospital system). If you missed even one you don't meet the standard.
Me: Why is this a 2?
Manager: Because the requirement was satisfied.
Me: Well sure, but shouldn't that be a 4?
Manager: No, that's not how this works.
Me: But it brings my score average down. If this is an 'on or off' scenario, shouldn't "on" be a 4 if "off" is a 0?
Manager: We really just don't give out 4s.
Me: * Blank stare *
omg that is exactly like it is at my work. This year was fucked. Made me instantly give 2 effort while I look for a new job
I hate to say it but Apathy's point is basically what happens to anyone who legitimately feels like they deserve more than a 2 (or 2.5 as average in your case, pika) in their rankings but receive 2s, some 2.5s and maybe a scant few feel-good 3s.Just had my first yearly performance review and its 0-5 and he had to explain before telling me it was a 3 that 3/5 means they've seen improvement in the last year, cuz it made people upset to get a 3/5.
Obviously, then you're never giving 5's if a 3 is better than the year before.
Other posts in this thread have already proven that wrong but even if they hadn't, why would that be relevant? Ybarra worked at Microsoft for 20 years, that's clearly where he got it.
Capitalism and infinite growth driving people to do horrible dehumanizing decisions, well I never!
That's an odd way to do the system. Every place I've worked at has done a 0-5 system, but 3 signified that you were meeting expectations (doing your job as described), with the adjustments up and down showing how much you were exceeding/missing that mark.Just had my first yearly performance review and its 0-5 and he had to explain before telling me it was a 3 that 3/5 means they've seen improvement in the last year, cuz it made people upset to get a 3/5.
Obviously, then you're never giving 5's if a 3 is better than the year before.
Yeah but management doesn't see it that way when they're taking the decision to enact that plan initially, they think along the lines of "The eye of Sauron is watching the little ants so they'll have to be more productive, then more money!". THEN they realize that everyone is pissed at them and shit isn't viable long term, when you're lucky that is.But it's not just that. I worked for a big corporation that did shit like this and it's UNBELIEVABLY inefficient. You lose talent, waste time with gaps in the work force, cost of recruitment and training, then get someone only 50% as good replacing them who ends up quitting a year later and repeat. The cost of bad management plans like this is astounding.
No, it's just Elon's Twitter being the piece of garbage that it is. The tweets are still there.Seems like he loves his team and the work they are doing to even consider coming back, I hope public scrutiny allows Brian to return to his team
Edit: looks like Brian removed the tweet
Yeah, I hadn't read that yet, been trying to avoid directly using Twitter if I can help it and thought all the important info had been embedded.Well I was just going by what it says in the article but if we're using hindsight info that popped up after our posts to guide us, the literal person the topic is based on says that it came from above Ybarra in the tweet on the previous page.
Crazy informative series of tweets actually, I had no clue the company was set up the way it is.
I hate to say it but Apathy's point is basically what happens to anyone who legitimately feels like they deserve more than a 2 (or 2.5 as average in your case, pika) in their rankings but receive 2s, some 2.5s and maybe a scant few feel-good 3s.
I get the idea of wanting people to always have something to reach for, but if I know I'm already excelling, relative to my co-workers or via my level of effort and output, recognizing my hard work with a 4 (to hell with even the thought of giving a good worker more money) won't automatically put me into a state of complacency. But It's mental warfare -- basically employment negging -- and it isn't encouraging me to push harder because once this happens the jig is up. I now know no matter how hard I work that the end result is I will receive the same ratings next time we do this. The idea of reaching the highest rating is fully illusory -- a treadmill with a carrot and a stick at the end situation to just keep you running.
It's all part of the scam. I mean plan.well to add insult to injury, you need a 3 or higher to get a raise at my company
Thread from the person in question:
View: https://twitter.com/BrianBirming/status/1617688536983175168?s=20&t=ah2Koq2VHPrmxH6PE-63dg
He claims in the final tweet that no one ever reached out to him for the article, but Jason claims he did (and I trust both of them), so it looks like there was unfortunately communication attempts that failed. Still, I support the article, even if ideally Brian would have had the opportunity to provide input or ask his name to be withheld.
Crazy to think all the "good" managers I encountered in my career ended up in burnout/at odds with their management/or bailed to another company because they were clearly told they had no advancement prospects because they were "defending" the people under them over just riding the company line.
Don't let this Tweet get lost in the shuffle.
View: https://twitter.com/BrianBirming/status/1617688557367488512?s=20&t=xzHxosnJG4hXwKRn1XEhIA
This is common in Banking. GE pushed it first decades ago. MS tried it for a few years, but relented and stopped.Just read about this and found the thread here but this is some BULLSHIT. I never heard of companies doing this. How have we not pushed for a fucking revolution of the workforce at this point. Didn't realize this kind of bullshit was that prevalent.
Is it possible someone spoke to Jason on behalf of Brian or just claimed to be Brian
View: https://twitter.com/brianbirming/status/1617688562148978690?s=46&t=z3a6PwVOz6a6mkDMke9Vwg
Jason Schreier is absolutely known in the industry for burning his sources and was the editor for the Nathalie Lawhead article were they lied about a sexual assault victims for clout/clicks (also never mentioned it or apologised for it despite Nathalie campaigning for the articles removal for years - eventually Kotaku's owner company removed it)
View: https://twitter.com/wuffles/status/1617706905937534977?s=46&t=ag4tL44lwcpZ-3pgB9WAZw
Jason knows that Brian did not want his name attached to this and could have extreme negative consequences for him. Jason could get it removed from article. Jason won't because it advances his career with clout and clicks. Jason will continue to block every dev on twitter that brings up these issues with him. This will come up again and again
This was already in the bloomberg article. Per both articles the manager in question stated to HR they would not work until the policy was changed as part of their protest.PC Gamer is saying he was fired, which is it?
https://www.pcgamer.com/blizzard-fi...after-he-protests-employee-evaluation-policy/
Oh, l see. Thanks for the clarification.This was already in the bloomberg article. Per both articles the manager in question stated to HR they would not work until the policy was changed as part of their protest.
Don't let this Tweet get lost in the shuffle.
View: https://twitter.com/BrianBirming/status/1617688557367488512?s=20&t=xzHxosnJG4hXwKRn1XEhIA
I hate to say it but Apathy's point is basically what happens to anyone who legitimately feels like they deserve more than a 2 (or 2.5 as average in your case, pika) in their rankings but receive 2s, some 2.5s and maybe a scant few feel-good 3s.
I get the idea of wanting people to always have something to reach for, but if I know I'm already excelling, relative to my co-workers or via my level of effort and output, recognizing my hard work with a 4 (to hell with even the thought of giving a good worker more money) won't automatically put me into a state of complacency. But It's mental warfare -- basically employment negging -- and it isn't encouraging me to push harder because once this happens the jig is up. I now know no matter how hard I work that the end result is I will receive the same ratings next time we do this. The idea of reaching the highest rating is fully illusory -- a treadmill with a carrot and a stick at the end situation to just keep you running.
While I of course empathize with everyone who has to deal with the repercussions of what happened, Brian Birmingham was a lead and public spokesman for WoW Classic, not a private figure, and this is a company-wide issue. The lead developer of a high-profile game at a massive company accused his higher-ups of changing one of his employee evaluations to meet a quota. I would be failing to do my job if I didn't report that.
Also, I reached out to him a couple of days ago and never heard back. If he had asked me not to publish his name or email, my calculus would have been different. Not that I necessarily wouldn't have done it — I'm not sure what I would've done — but I certainly would have spent a lot of time thinking it over.
Jason Schreier is absolutely known in the industry for burning his sources and was the editor for the Nathalie Lawhead article were they lied about a sexual assault victims for clout/clicks (also never mentioned it or apologised for it despite Nathalie campaigning for the articles removal for years - eventually Kotaku's owner company removed it)
View: https://twitter.com/wuffles/status/1617706905937534977?s=46&t=ag4tL44lwcpZ-3pgB9WAZw
Jason knows that Brian did not want his name attached to this and could have extreme negative consequences for him. Jason could get it removed from article. Jason won't because it advances his career with clout and clicks. Jason will continue to block every dev on twitter that brings up these issues with him. This will come up again and again
This is exactly on point (edit: holy crap I just saw your username after posting this!), the positive effects people think this system has brings with them equal and opposite negative effects. As soon as you give someone who worked hard and performed well a mediocre grade because they got nudged out by a stupid quota system you are effectively murdering their motivation to repeat or exceed their performance going forward, not motivating them to 'try even harder', especially if they have a good idea of their worth.