Just kind of curious to find out what kind of opinions are out there... Joined in 2013, straight out of school...
13 replies (most recent on top)
Squaky wheel gets the grease... True for Qualcomm as well. Play up your work, find plausible faults with others and make it a big deal in meetings, avoid getting poached... play book for successful careers everywhere. It is dirty, but hey who said money is not?
2/year is just too much. there is a ton of effort that goes into this, people see limited value. i get the same review over and over.
Can you elaborate on the Microsoft exerience
I think way too many people do not know how good they have it. I worked at Qualcomm for 7 years and then for the last 2 years at Microsoft.Qualcomm review process by comparison is fair and merit based. If you want to see awful judgemental and non objective reviews, then come to Microsoft though thankfully the stacked ranking that said day you are in the top 50% is now gone.
Personally, I think it is fairly okay. I like the fact that it is done twice a year. I am not a huge fan of comparing engineers and pitting them against each other, but there is no other way to promote people.
I hate the fact that working weekends and long hours is considered a badge of honor. A significant portion of Qualcomm doesn't know how to write software. So, we have debug donkeys that spend sizeable portion of the weekends and vacation time working on mundane problems that shouldn't have come up in the first place had proper software design methodologies been followed. A person who does his\her job well and perhaps puts in 8-9 hours regularly is likely to be overlooked during reviews in favor of a debug donkey who burns the midnight oil fixing self-created problems
Yes twice a year. Grading on a curve is done in colleges. Why shouldn't it be done in the Q? If you want to feel like a king, goto some other company. The "average" Joe at Qualcomm is smarter than most engineers around the world. Performance reviews are handled different from department to department. Your mileage will definitely vary. If my work wasn't challenging, I wouldn't have stayed as long as I have.
Are you guys still doing it two times every year?
My favorite line from the "managers" is that "so-and-so got a bigger raise/bonus because he routinely spends over 60 hours per week at the office." If the people in charge actually watched some of these people, they'd realize that they talk a good game but really don't know as much, and they spend about 20 hours per week texting or emailing other people to find out what they SHOULD be doing and HOW to do it!
well there are many people trying to get credit for "small improvements"...10 people are working on a project needing 5...so everyone has to eat from a same pie..ending up that those who talk a lot get credit... I see waste everywhere....useless meetings and many people just doing the job of "transferring information from one to another".....when the first thought which comes to peoples mind that "how it will benefit me to get promotion or more money"....then it is dead end....too many managers leads to too much politics and "state within a state mentality".....
If you are a loudmouth and 'speak up' in meetings you will do well, else you will just do ok. It's all about 'look at me' and being the most vocal person in the room.
I really do not get the 'curve' aspect, so, let's say we have 10 folks, all 10 are good and we should develop them and groom them to grow and contribute. The curve will force most of them to feel 'average' when in fact they might be gems that any company would love to have. Not sure if I can say that I appreciate the existing approach for 'ranking' folks.
All departments should be comparing each engineer to another of the same title. That's how QC does their reviews. It's all on a curve and should be based on deliverables and feedback. It is difficult when the job functions differ but easy if each title has a similar job description.
Can't speak for other departments but in MST the entire review process is unfair. Each title on each team is directly compared head to head. This makes no sense since there it little overlap between tasks and responsibilities. The engineers with more visibility across teams get higher marks than those that don't. Technical skills and peer feedback are a backseat to showing up as "important" on other technical leads radar. Good feedback from peers is not mentioned if a single negative feedback comes back, not matter how trivial or insignificant. Perceived performance >> actual performance.