Our annual reviews has been corrupted into a system of favoritism.Ratings and promotions are no longer based on contribution but on connections—both personal networks and , more importantly , the networks of managers who push cases through on the strength of goodwill rather than merit.
This has turned AR's into a negotiation of influence , not an evaluation of performance.Technical expertise , and tangible results are consistently sidelined , while visibility and relationships dictate ratings and promotions.
Replace current calibration practices with a transparent framework grounded in measurable outcomes , 360-degree evaluation, and objective criteria.
10 replies (most recent on top)
@eb thats some real talk..
You can provide feedback to whoever you want without them asking for it. Go in and wrote feedback for the people you see fit. If you don't have the ba--s, then don't complain.
@c6 You sound like someone from Toad Mutton's team. .... let me guess .... in AZ?
Principals Directors and VPs in US have distorted the review process into a tool for personal power. Instead of providing leadership, they operate as brokers of influence between remote teams and senior management in US, positioning themselves as gatekeepers of visibility and advancement. Teams are forced to rely on their endorsement, which allows these operators to claim credit for work they did not do and maintain a relevance that is otherwise hollow. If India and China teams had direct access to execs in US, it would become clear that these middlemen add no real value. Their survival depends entirely on blocking visibility and playing politics.To protect their position, they engage in favoritism and manipulation. They reward loyalists who shield them or echo their views, while punishing those who speak up, disagree in public, or expose mistakes. Strong local leads are often deliberately starved of information and opportunities when seen as a threat. This behavior not only suppresses merit but also creates damaging rifts within teams, dividing people into camps of enablers and outcasts. What has emerged is a culture where silence is rewarded, truth is penalized, and advancement depends not on contribution but on allegiance to political gatekeepers.
Everyone in q should go attend gsoc vp meeting
Sorry to tell you folks it's like this at any large company. What you folks see as "B.S. bingo"
or "the networks of managers who push cases through" is literally just selling work. You need to learn to sell your work.
Your co-worker who you think is d-mb as bricks but got the promo over you? They sold their work to the directors or sr. directors and got the promo support, you didn't. It's part of the job learn to do it.
Should you have to sell your work to directors and sr. directors? No, they should be smart enough to see what's going on and contributions of the IC's under their sr staff/principal managers. But they aren't so learn to do it for them.
Most of the Sr Dir and VP's in QCT are brown nose jokes.
This is not a new revelation-- it has been the case for at least a decade or more. Merit increases and promotions are base on how well you play B.S. bingo rather than your results. Sad to say, either learn to play the game by those rule or look for employment elsewhere.
Measure of someones worth should not be how many VPs or senior leaders support their case
Promotions must reflect contribution and impact.it should not be based on connections and visibility
Yeah let the engineers give honest feedback on PMIC Santa and Mutton. The era nepotism needs to end. Last year promotion was a joke, I quit from the sh-t show when I know it is rigged.