4/7 Engineer
16 comments
Metrics like that are bullshit. They’re worthless carnival cash designed to keep employees in line lest they demand actual compensation for the value they truly provide.
Measuring developer proficiency in terms of a single number is particularly ridiculous.
Every D&D character is more multifaceted than that.
Measuring developer proficiency in terms of a single number is particularly ridiculous.
Every D&D character is more multifaceted than that.
This.
Make sure you are getting paid what you are worth, and ignore the rating system.
Make sure you are getting paid what you are worth, and ignore the rating system.
That seems like a good, in-person direct question for a 1:1 with your manager when you have plenty of time to follow up with questions. It deserves having its own time devoted to it, which is (presumably) the point of your 1:1s.
It doesn't sound like you've been able to ask it that way yet, and that would probably be the best way to get a feel for what it means, your manager's expectations, and how to improve.
It doesn't sound like you've been able to ask it that way yet, and that would probably be the best way to get a feel for what it means, your manager's expectations, and how to improve.
It's a sign of poor management, add a strike against the company in your mental tally then stop caring about it and do your job with a smile.
When you can't be bothered with your bad manager/company any more get a different job.
Don't burn bridges.
Working for someone is a business transaction, not a school class. No company should grade you like a child and you should judge the company as such.
When you can't be bothered with your bad manager/company any more get a different job.
Don't burn bridges.
Working for someone is a business transaction, not a school class. No company should grade you like a child and you should judge the company as such.
I’m about to say something that has the potential to sound demeaning, but I promise that is not my intent.
I think you’re taking this way too seriously. The conversation was friendly, there was no warning or PIP attached, and finally, you’ve only been there for four weeks.
Put it out of your mind and keep doing what you’re doing. It sounds like you’ve had an impressive first month. Be proud!
I think you’re taking this way too seriously. The conversation was friendly, there was no warning or PIP attached, and finally, you’ve only been there for four weeks.
Put it out of your mind and keep doing what you’re doing. It sounds like you’ve had an impressive first month. Be proud!
This is common in the corporate world, and a form of stack ranking. Top of the stack = promote and give large raises, middle of the stack = keep and give small raises if any, bottom of the stack = get rid of. 4/7 says "keep" to me. Bosses often have a distribution of 4's, 5's, 6's, etc. they have to line up with their staff as per company policy. This means marking up your top performers as 4/7 sometimes to keep them from shrinking your staff.
It's a bit like "buy", "strong buy", "hold" recommendations for stocks, which translate better to "hold", "buy", "sell".
It's only been a month, but this metric is stupid to have, and even more stupid to share with employees. The problem with stack ranking is if you have an all-star team or an F troop in your organization. At some point you're promoting and getting rid of the wrong people. It's a subjective political metric.
Workplace psychology doesn't match with it either. An average Uber driver still expects 5 stars. Give him 3 even if you believe he deserves 3, and he'll resent you. Maybe he'll refuse your ride next time if he finds out.
4/7 isn't an insult to a new hire, just an insulting metric to a workforce.
It's a bit like "buy", "strong buy", "hold" recommendations for stocks, which translate better to "hold", "buy", "sell".
It's only been a month, but this metric is stupid to have, and even more stupid to share with employees. The problem with stack ranking is if you have an all-star team or an F troop in your organization. At some point you're promoting and getting rid of the wrong people. It's a subjective political metric.
Workplace psychology doesn't match with it either. An average Uber driver still expects 5 stars. Give him 3 even if you believe he deserves 3, and he'll resent you. Maybe he'll refuse your ride next time if he finds out.
4/7 isn't an insult to a new hire, just an insulting metric to a workforce.
You have to gauge the company culture and figure out what's most likely.
Could be that they didn't want to overwhelm you so you got less than usual work to begin with and their expectation was that you'll come asking for more work (that's what I do when the job is "easy").
Also could be that the incumbents are defending their positions by rating you lower than you should be. If they put you in a bracket below themselves then it's increased job security for them and a higher probability for raises/promotions.
Could be that they didn't want to overwhelm you so you got less than usual work to begin with and their expectation was that you'll come asking for more work (that's what I do when the job is "easy").
Also could be that the incumbents are defending their positions by rating you lower than you should be. If they put you in a bracket below themselves then it's increased job security for them and a higher probability for raises/promotions.
Could also be part of the ratings scheme.
Maybe there are events triggered by a score (e.g. 3/7 is a review of skills, 6/7 is consider a promotion).
Or perhaps the manager has to justify any above-average ratings to their superiors -- meaning that "everyone gets a four" makes the wheels move slowly.
I think the most likely answer though, is that they don't feel they know you well enough (yet) to judge. One month isn't very long at all. Once you've been on a few projects, your manager will get a better feel for your skillset.
When you get to a 6- or 12-month appraisal, ask again -- but ask it differently. The question you want to ask is "Are there any things you think I could improve / any skills you'd recommend I learn or improve on?"
Maybe there are events triggered by a score (e.g. 3/7 is a review of skills, 6/7 is consider a promotion).
Or perhaps the manager has to justify any above-average ratings to their superiors -- meaning that "everyone gets a four" makes the wheels move slowly.
I think the most likely answer though, is that they don't feel they know you well enough (yet) to judge. One month isn't very long at all. Once you've been on a few projects, your manager will get a better feel for your skillset.
When you get to a 6- or 12-month appraisal, ask again -- but ask it differently. The question you want to ask is "Are there any things you think I could improve / any skills you'd recommend I learn or improve on?"
There appears to be an assumption that this is a linear rating list. Have you asked how the ratings were derived?
Second, it appeared if your rating was based purely on your perception of the first week your score would be higher. As usually the first impression is important.
I find your comment: From my perspective this job is really easy, so I'm confused.
Did you ever think they gave you easy stuff to see how you reacted? If it was easy did you make sure what you did was extra perfect (documented, tested etc, good grammar?) If it was so easy, then an above average person would have asked for more work, or more challenging work.
Lastly, they just hired you. They expected you to perform at level X. Had you been rated a 7/7 then maybe they hired you at too low of a level. If you were a 1/7 then you were hired way above your skill set. A 4/7 says you are a perfect fit for the job they hired you into.
Second, it appeared if your rating was based purely on your perception of the first week your score would be higher. As usually the first impression is important.
I find your comment: From my perspective this job is really easy, so I'm confused.
Did you ever think they gave you easy stuff to see how you reacted? If it was easy did you make sure what you did was extra perfect (documented, tested etc, good grammar?) If it was so easy, then an above average person would have asked for more work, or more challenging work.
Lastly, they just hired you. They expected you to perform at level X. Had you been rated a 7/7 then maybe they hired you at too low of a level. If you were a 1/7 then you were hired way above your skill set. A 4/7 says you are a perfect fit for the job they hired you into.
You say the job is really easy, and your manager rates you a 4/7. Maybe you’re playing the game in easy mode? I.e. doing (well) what’s asked of you but not doing the implicitly expected (finishing tasks earlier than you said you would, writing a post on the company blog, volunteering for pager duty, whatever)
To be clear, it’s absolutely your manager’s job to set expectations and to walk you through the cultural norms of the company, but bad managers happen. Maybe it’s worth having a chat with some of your colleagues who’ve been in the company for a few months to understand how their integration went and see if they have some tips for you (assuming your manager isn’t more forthcoming on how to get a higher score).
To be clear, it’s absolutely your manager’s job to set expectations and to walk you through the cultural norms of the company, but bad managers happen. Maybe it’s worth having a chat with some of your colleagues who’ve been in the company for a few months to understand how their integration went and see if they have some tips for you (assuming your manager isn’t more forthcoming on how to get a higher score).
To fixate on a rating seemingly based on a likert scale is a rather strange conundrum to have, after a month into a new job, especially considering that everything is hunky-dory.
On the other hand, a 7/7 rating would probably set off a full-blown existential crisis..
On the other hand, a 7/7 rating would probably set off a full-blown existential crisis..
If you could write a blog post on how you bridged two CSS systems and why some engineers are anti-styled components you'd be a 7/7 engineer in my books. Thanks.
You were rated after one month at the company? This is absolutely not normal. Places like FB don't even really rate you until the 2nd performance cycle, between 7 and 11 months after your start date.
Yesterday I had my first 1:1 with my manager, in which he told me the company has rated me as a "4 out of 7" in terms of skill. The conversation was pretty friendly, we were laughing etc. but as the day went on I kept thinking "4 out of 7? Based on what metrics?". I asked my manager what the rating is based on over Slack, no response. Later in the day after we had talked about other stuff, asked again briefly, no response.
What the job has been like so far:
• I worked with design in my 1st week to prototype 3 different design systems in CRA apps – basically todo-list apps using different UI libraries. The goal was to see which React app was easiest for designers or Rails devs (and anyone else who is anti-styled components) to jump in and modify styles, and which system seemed easiest to extend. Ended up choosing a system, and building a bridge between CSS and styled so devs can use styled-components and designers can use SASS and both will work, design seemed happy, we presented to the company, everyone clapped. Yay, great first week.
• The next week was training 8 hours a day with the other new hires, and I got no tasks for a week.
• Third week I'm back into the mix. We just switched to Auth0 so I was tasked to write the e2e tests to test logging in with our new provider, using various authentication methods. I also reviewed a number of PRs, and fixed some small/easy front-end bugs.
• 4th week I had my 1:1 where they said I'm a "4 out of 7". I know I haven't exactly been doing rocket science in my first month here, but I've done everything they've told me to within the allotted time. We have 2-week sprints and usually only have a couple of tasks. From my perspective this job is really easy, so I'm confused.
Anyone heard of this system, or know what I can do to improve my rating?