My takeaway ( and an indication of who actually needs a performance review [ e.g. the manager ])
“ It’s my opinion that the biggest factor in an employee's performance – perhaps bigger than the employee’s abilities and level of effort – is whether their manager set them up for success
“
Or other way around - in bigcorp (or in startup) choosing what to work on have much bigger impact than the work you do.
On very low level it's up to your manager. As time goes, even as IC you have a lot of agency. It's not just company selection, team selection, but also which part of the project you are working on and how you are approaching solving it.
Of course "if everyone does this, who will fix the bugs". However, the quickest promoted people I've seen are the people who were excellent at politics-izing (and sometimes foresight) the best work assigned to them.
I disagree. The best employees are the employees who don't need to be managed. They figure what out what needs to be done and walk into the business (from day one to the last day they are there) thinking like owners. Google in its very early days operated without managers. Some of the most successful companies / start-ups delivered what they delivered not due to management, but due to having a few highly-motivated individuals who were dead set in delivering something outstanding to the world. They didn't need to be micro-managed into doing what they did - they figured out what needed to be done and figured out how to get there.
It's not so much that managers need a performance review per se, but they need training and useful feedback.
If you've ever worked in tech management, your experience likely was "IDK, you're senior, you vaguely have an idea what we should do, here, go manage a few folks".
No training, or minimal training. Often with an expectation that of course you can still be a strong technical contributor, because how much time could managing folks possibly take. And then mostly being evaluated based on how your reports delivered.
As long as we follow that approach, we'll struggle with managers doing the right thing, because they neither have learned it, nor have they seen it modelled.
Sure, that expresses in bad manager performance, but often nobody can really see it or tell people what they should do better. Performance review is too late to fix that. (This is, btw, mostly true for employees as well - if you only talk about performance 1-4 times a year, people are being set up to fail)
As someone doing this transition, I would love some references that help me... Train myself I guess? Other than by doing and analyzing myself, which is my current situation
I have realized I can give so many tips and reference so many great content online to learn math, programming, engineering... But find myself missing anything about managing
The USA & Russia made a pact to defend the Ukraine, based on the Ukraine giving up their nukes.
“ As the United States mediated between Russia and Ukraine, the three countries signed the Trilateral Statement on January 14, 1994. Ukraine committed to full disarmament, including strategic weapons, in exchange for economic support and security assurances from the United States and Russia.”
If the USA doesn’t defend them adequately the USA will have broken their 1994 agreement - with all the trust implications for future agreements.
By invading the Ukraine, Russia broke its 1994 deal.
The USA and Russia also agreed in 1994 to Ukrainian autonomy and sovereignty, e.g. the freedom to join NATO and the EU if they want - which gives the lie to NATO membership as a cause !
Russia agreed in 1994 that the Ukraine had the right to join NATO or anything else it wanted to do - that is the the definition of autonomy and sovereignty.
Thus implicitly, in fact, Russia agreed to defend the Ukraine’s right to join NATO.
Russia has broken treaties to invade many of it neighbours recently, this needs to be questioned not apologised for.
More concretely, if Russia is allowed ANY success in Ukraine, it puts the nail in the coffin of nuclear non-proliferation. If the only thing the world does is bow to anyone who can hold it hostage with a nuclear threat, the only defense is your own nukes. If you want to avoid countries fighting nuclear war, you are better off fucking over Russia right now, and understanding that their nuclear talk is all bluff (for now) rather than wait until hundreds of tiny and unstable countries have nukes that they want to fire at each other.
If the West defends Ukraine from a nuclear armed nation, then we can convincingly tell the rest of the world "You don't need nukes, so don't build them".
Indeed this is the risk if Trump breaches the USA’s 1994 treaty agreement by surrendering territory in a ‘peace-deal’ then not only will the USA be oath breakers but who will trust a nuclear non-proliferation treaty in the future.
Perhaps Trump will not want to look weak and stand firm but it seems not unlikely that he will Kowtow to Russia and give them what they want at the expense of our Ukrainian allies.
In 1994 Russia and the USA agreed to Ukrainian sovereignty and its borders in return for the Ukraine voluntarily disarming its nukes:
It was promised the USA AND Russia would provide the Ukraine adequate defense in lieu of giving up their nukes.
Which gives the lie to “Russia invaded because of impending Ukrainian NATO membership” - the USA & Russia already promised to defend their 1994 borders AT THAT TIME.
The USA and Russia also agreed in 1994 to Ukrainian autonomy and sovereignty, e.g. the freedom to join NATO and the EU if they want.
It is Putin that has broken his pact with the Ukraine by invading.
“
As the United States mediated between Russia and Ukraine, the three countries signed the Trilateral Statement on January 14, 1994. Ukraine committed to full disarmament, including strategic weapons, in exchange for economic support and security assurances from the United States and Russia.
“
If the USA cedes Ukrainian territory to Russia in a peace deal the USA will also have broken its 1994 agreement to defend the Ukraine’s 1994 borders and its autonomy ( to join NATO if it desires ).
200 countries pledged $300 billion per year in total - not very much since climate change disasters are already costing tens of billions a year and many human lives in the US alone.
The article contains Young’s surviving eyewitness account of the much-memed ‘demon core’[0] incident involving Louis Slotin.
Young expresses anger at the pressure put on Slotin to enact the experiment so dangerously in person.
“ Hospitalized for observation, Young was released, but forever after blamed Slotin’s death on Groves’ insistence on obtaining test results before proper equipment was available. “There was no need to kill Louis Slotin to show that making critical mass measures should be made by remote control,” he wrote in 1975, still angry.”
As the demon-core incident is often attributed to Slotin showing off and his careless youthful bravado, Young’s account is valuable as is testifies that pressure for results from the head of the project Gen. Leslie Groves was the cause that the experiment was not performed remotely.
Young further testified that Slotin’s quick reactions saved him and others from a fatal dose.
“ Slotin immediately knocked the two hemispheres of radioactive material apart with his hand, probably saving the other technicians and scientists in the room—including Young—from immediate death.
“
So Slotin was not a fool but under deadline pressure for results and his actions saved others.
Young is a fascinating chap, no formal science education but worked his way up to scientist and made the world’s first working breeder reactor in his spare time.
Both can be simultaneously true. Slotin was already regarded as impatient and reckless before said accident - perhaps these types of missions tend to fall on those predisposed to take them.
I had a near miss in my 20s in a research context. In retrospect it was very close. It was really unimportant research. I think its important not to assume too much intent here on behalf of Slotin. He might have been angry or jubilant or hungover or disatracted.
A smart worker will eyeball their draw for red and redraw a few times until they get a good draw.
There may be other ways to flick off red beads by tilting and tapping.
None of this is excluded behaviour at least in this article.