Performance Review Q&A and Videos

I am a mid-level engineer at an HFT company. I've been with my current company for around 7 months and another similar one for 2.5 years previously. My biggest career issue so far has been poor attention to detail, which leads to me to always miss small mistakes I make.

For instance, I always review my own PRs myself before sending to reviewers, and clean up plenty of issues I notice myself. But then my reviewer will point out some kind of bug, or something I forgot to do, and in retrospect it will be immediately obvious to me. Alex often mentions the importance of being able to get most of your PRs accepted in one attempt, but for anything > 30 lines this simply feels like a pipe dream because I am so terrible at noticing things until it's too late.

(For the record, I'm very thorough with test coverage, but when I simply forget to implement something, I of course forget to test it too).

Another more specific example is that our process of verifying features in production is sometimes a bit involved, and requires changing config in several places. I knew what to change, did so and tested everything, then told my manager the feature had been verified. Later on he was looking at the configs (not sure whether he did it to check my work or for some unrelated reason) and pointed out that I did not actually set everything as I intended to, and therefore the feature wasn't verified correctly. I realized mistake I made (ran a command to change a bunch of files in the wrong directory) but only after the fact, and it cost me embarrassment and extra work.

I think I'm quite good at the other aspects of software engineering: coming up with impactful ideas and executing on them independently, picking up domain knowledge and areas of the codebase quickly, fixing bugs (my own or others'), presenting on my work, etc. So I've been able to eke out "meets" and even "exceeds" reviews at my first job because I had significant impact despite blundering all over the place.

But my deficiencies in this area make me fearful for my career, as I am always worried about making just enough mistakes to get PIP'd or fired. Furthermore, we don't have levels here, but I doubt I can make it to the equivalent of Staff or even the senior level with this kind of defect.

Does anyone have advice on how I can "train my brain", as it were, to improve at this ASAP and make sure I don't go down the wrong trajectory? Thanks!

I joined meta just a few months ago and didn’t get even one entire half.

I missed the TNTE date by 3 weeks so had to go through PSC which was excruciating.

My manager said I got a borderline Below Expectation (BE) due to the Eng Excellence axis. All other axes were either exceeds or meets.

It’s mainly because while I started some projects I didn’t finish all parts of it and the impact wasn’t materialized. But he said there isn’t anything to freak out about and rather he’s not quite worried about the eng excellence axis. He said my trajectory is good and that if we had psc in August I wouldn’t get the BE. He asked to rather focus on people axis as he doesn’t see a clear path towards meeting expectations there and it has fewer opportunities.

I asked what the implications are for this soft BE guidance, he said there’s none pretty much. No financial implications or any other changes. He’ll just be focused on brining up Eng excellence conversations in 1:1s every month.

How concerned should I be about this? Should I take his words and not worry too much or is there some reading between the lines that I need to be doing? Will he be talking to HR already about me?

About Company: growing mid-size startup, great tech culture, talented people to work with, pays well

Promoted in recent appraisal cycle (2 levels above entry level, similar to L6 at Amazon) but the increment is not attractive compared to what is normally paid at that level (within company). Performance review was great but manager does not have much say in deciding increment percentage. I do see learning opportunities here in future but demotivated by this bias.

How do I renegotiate salary? How to have this discussion with skip manager?

I've got a performance review coming up. It's not my first one at the company, but it will be the first time I'll be actively pushing for a promotion. It's also the first review with a new format, where we'll need to align our accomplishments with company values and our roles' "competencies"—10 in total, which seems like quite a lot to me. In light of that, I have a few questions:

1. How long should a self-review generally be?
2. Should I cover all or as many of these values and competencies as I can, or should I focus on just a few of them?
3. Should I prioritize quality over quantity and share only the strongest achievements? Or does it make sense to include both the biggest achievements and just good ones?

Recently I had asked a friend who works in DevX analytics (developer experience analytics) about her work and she mentioned that currently there was no other way to measure developer productivity other than lines of code or how frequent, often, and long someone was coding. Isn’t this a bad measure for productivity? Couldn’t someone just be pushing crap code (copy and paste) that has no substantive value to the team? I also thought about this article by the CTO of Carta that also talks about alignment and other ways to understand substantive and more qualitative measures than quantitative factors to evaluate success and I guess productivity?

How does your company evaluate developer productivity and success and metrics? I’ve found talking to former Meta engineers a lot they tend to have some really specific ways to measure success metrics that seem reasonable.

Historically, my managers have never been willing to commit to a set of performance criteria (i.e. what it looks like to meet criteria, exceed criteria, or be promoted). They usually defer to company guidelines without specifying what I can do on my project that would meet their bar. I get it, as they want to hedge their bets and motivate me without committing to anything. My career has gone well anyway and I ultimately get good enough reviews and periodic promotions. However, I often get feedback that high performance or promotions require me to do things that I am already doing and including in my review. I do not know what else to do to get stellar reviews.

I have been asked to lead a large, risky, technically challenging project with a scope and time horizon significantly beyond my level. The project sounds interesting but like a huge amount of work and stress. If I take on the role, I would like to be rewarded for it. Whether successful delivery leads to a promotion is a big factor in my decision. My manager will not commit to what succeeding in this project means for my career.

In general, is there a way to get more concrete criteria and commitments from managers? In this case specifically, what should I do?

I recently started a side project that could have an org level impact soon within this year. The feedback for the prototype is pretty good and I got a green-light to put more bandwidth in it.

I used to think once I get the good work done, promotion should come naturally. But both my manager and skip manager are telling me to leave proper documentation and communication as evidence for promotion - docs like PRD, roadmap planning, status update etc.

I usually do communications pretty well, so their feedback make me wonder if I missing something for a staff level promotion.

• What kind of evidence is being valued in a staff promo packet? Any differences between senior and staff promo packet?
• What do I need to highlight and keep track of if I'm creating scope outside of daily work?
• What kind of data I should keep track of to quantify the impact? How do you usually learn about finding the matrix to track?

Thanks!