In my experience, performance evaluations were heavily driven by metrics that did not adequately reflect the complexity or impact of the work being performed. I consistently worked on a high volume of advanced tickets involving deep troubleshooting and multiple queries, which required significantly more effort and time than standard cases, yet this was not meaningfully differentiated in evaluation.
I was placed on a PIP primarily based on this metric, despite handling some of the most complex issues in the queue. This highlighted a clear gap between measurable output and actual contribution, particularly in roles where quality, depth, and problem-solving are critical.
Additionally, contributions beyond metrics — such as mentoring peers, improving knowledge base content, and organising team and community initiatives — were not adequately recognised. These efforts directly improve team capability, morale, and long-term efficiency, but were largely overlooked in performance discussions.
Finally, the impact of organisational restructuring further reinforced the misalignment between stated values and actual practices. A more transparent, fair, and holistic evaluation system would go a long way in building trust.