The Engineering Executive's Primer

Chapter 22. Performance and Compensation

Uber’s original performance review process was called “T3B3” and was remarkably simple: write the individual’s top three strengths and top three weaknesses, and share the feedback with them directly in person. There was a prolonged fight against even documenting the feedback, because they worried that writing the feedback down—where it might later be discovered by others—would discourage honesty. On the other side of things, there are numerous stories of Google employees spending months crafting promotion packets that ultimately don’t get them promotions. Among those who’ve worked within both Uber and Google’s promotion processes, there are advocates and detractors, and absolutely no consensus on what an ideal performance review process looks like.

Compensation poses a subtly different set of problems, but similarly there are no universally appreciated compensation review processes out there. Highly structured, centrally orchestrated compensation systems often converge on folks who, at a given level, receive similar compensation, even if their impact is quite different. More dynamic compensation systems disproportionately reward top performers, which introduces room for bias.

Because there’s no agreement on what performance or compensation process you should use, you’ll likely end up working within a variety of processes. This chapter digs into:

• The conflicting goals between those designing, operating, and participating in performance ...