> no context as to whether or not those things were the metrics by which her performance was being measured
But per the blog post:
> Based on the positive feedback from my one-on-ones and how well I was tracking against the goals set for the next engineering level, I was hopeful of getting a promotion and a raise.
I'm confused as to how one could be "tracking against the goals set for the next engineering level" but not be measured by those metrics.
1. (Less likely) She did a lot of work, but it was not high priority work. It was good engineering but on things that the company did not consider important. She was given this freedom and then, in the company's eyes (fairly or unfairly) considered to have wasted it.
2. (More likely) She had good technical skills and bad social skills. When she was able to go heads-down and crank out PRs and tickets, everyone was happy, but she was socially abrasive and alienated her coworkers. This could be because she is an unpleasant person, or because they are unpleasant people, or it could be an honest misunderstanding or personality conflict, but in every case it detracts from the productivity of everyone, generally.
I suspect (2) played a big part, mostly because I've seen this same dynamic play out at other places before. As a borderline autist, I'm highly sympathetic to people in that position, and generally believe that it's better for everyone involved if management can find a way to work to their strengths. However, drastic differences in interaction style are what they are, and at the end of the day, your employer's priority is their productivity, not your happiness. Sometimes these things happen. They suck. At least we're fortunate enough to work in an industry where we have half a dozen other options for work at any time
> This could be because she is an unpleasant person, or because they are
> unpleasant people, or it could be an honest misunderstanding or personality
> conflict, but in every case it detracts from the productivity of everyone,
> generally.
I'm not saying that it's necessarily the case here, but the behaviour of "well let's just fire this one person, no matter who was in the wrong" is only good from a "anything for the company's bottomline" perspective.
But
> I'm not saying that it's necessarily the case here, but the behaviour of "well let's just fire this one person, no matter who was in the wrong" is only good from a "anything for the company's bottomline" perspective.
Regardless of one's opinions on ethics, this is the attitude your employer _will_ take and it will _never_ change unless they are forced to do so. Tech companies are the shepherds of billions of dollars worth of assets, and they are going to protect those assets over you, when push comes to shove. Consequently, it is important to always keep this in mind, to expect it, and to proceed accordingly. Ignoring this doesn't make it untrue
> I brought up the fact that we had been actively working on improving that over the past several months and that I had been tracking well against the goals we agreed to, but she said that the review period was only through January so that progress didn't count.
So, the "tracking well" was in a 4 month span not in the review period.
Here's another question: Why were weekly one-on-one meetings happening to discuss these issues? Are weekly one-on-ones typical at GitHub?
Whilst the article is (as I've pointed out elsewhere) only one side of the story, GitHub isn't that big a company, so how crap do your management processes have to be that you only get around to reviewing somebody 3 months after the review period ended? It doesn't sound like the scheduling of the review was a surprise to Coraline: she saw it coming, it wasn't late, etc. So why didn't it cover the period up to the date of the review?
Bashing somebody with months old feedback when they've been working with you to improve against goals that you've both agreed specifically related to that feedback is an extremely poor way to operate, and obviously hugely demotivating to the reviewee.
Problem is, as I've already said, we've only read one side of the story.
In my experience, both as a manager and an individual contributor, the periods will be offset by 2-4 months. The delivery of the review, while it feels like the start of something to the recipient, is the end of what's often a long and stressful period of planning, writing, and distributing reviews that lead to raises, bonuses, and promotions.
So nothing seems odd about that timeline to me, unless her manager failed to explain "this is a review that applies to the period before you made marked improvement".
Shouldn't the review have happened closer to the end of the period, so that all of that progress could be part of improvement?
I'm obviously taking a cynical take on this -- there are lots of organizations that try to use performance reviews to help an employee's career, and HR that is there to help the employees, not to bail the company out of litigation.
It would help if we had an inside perspective on how their reviews work from someone who isn't invested in this specific story.