LOL. Merit pay at Microsoft "promotes politics over fair reviews - a popularity contest" (2006)

[Hannah Bell]

Microsoft Corp. has over 60,000 employees, and like almost all large corporations, it uses a performance review process to rate them. The idea behind any corporate performance review system is to provide an accurate and fair assessment of employee contributions, but some employees say Microsoft's system promotes politics over fair reviews.

According to employees, who said they would be fired if they spoke on the record, the annual review amounts to little more than a closed-door popularity contest in which managers "fight" for higher scores for their team, or defer to higher-level decision makers who mandate how many workers drop to the bottom of the review scale.

One employee in the company's Mobile and Embedded Devices group said when it comes to her review score, "my performance is about 10 percent of the whole equation."

Another employee denounced a compensation system that is "capricious in its tolerance of managers who corrupt the system for their personal gain," and blamed consecutive low-rankings on a "well-entrenched culture of favoritism."

http://archive.washtech.org/news/industry/display.php?ID_Content=5041

[laughingliberal]

1. Pretty much the definition of merit pay systems. nt

[ixion]

4. Well, not really...

It is the anti-definition. ;)

[BzaDem]

2. Is your argument (by posting this) that merit pay is always and everywhere a bad idea?

In other words, ostensibly bonuses should not be given in any profession ever, because that might lead to politics being involved?

Or are you simply arguing that politics is a common problem when it comes to merit pay/bonuses, and companies should try (to the extent possible) to work that out of the system?

[Hannah Bell]

3. i posted an article from wash tech. i didn't make an "argument".