Employee Performance Evaluation Form: Fill & Download for Free

The short answer is the salary is not different by very much - but the kind of work you do and the culture vary greatly. And you should decide based on that and your passion.The long answer: I currently work at Google, I used to work at Microsoft, and I've interviewed on-site both with Facebook and Amazon - but I have an MS, not a PhD. Hopefully I can come close enough to answering your question.For obvious reasons your mileage will vary depending on your level of experience in the industry, your PhD focus, et cetera and I can't give you straight up numbers due to that variance (not to mention that I can't speak for any company). The way I would go about evaluating opportunities would be:Get a clear idea for how much an engineer with your level of experience is worth, by going on Glassdoor.com and doing some homework. You can specify the job, the company and the market (e.g. San Francisco vs. Seattle).In my experience with my friends, typically each academic year after undergraduate studies is translated to anywhere between 0.5 to 1 year of industry experience. Whatever the exact ratio might be, I've seen it applied almost identically across the said companies.Microsoft and Amazon are both based in Seattle where there is no state income tax. Google and Facebook are both in the Bay Area, where the state income tax is just under 10% and the cost of living is a bit higher. That will certainly factor into your salary negotiation, so you should control for it in the research. If you're negotiating for an office that happens to be outside the main HQ's state, you should negotiate based on where you'll be working.Depending on how well the subject of your research aligns with the immediate market strategy of the company, there may be a premium variation in pay that you can play with. Typically companies have a built-in "range" they can bid with in their hiring process and lots of conditions in which it may apply. But don't expect to be able to meet these criteria by just talking over the phone. Your best strategy would always be to interview at more than one place and let the market decide what you're worth.Now the sum of the above points was that the process is similar and the variations can be explained by natural causes. The key is never to have just one interview lined up, if you want a fair offer. Here's what I want you to think about:At the very most, if you negotiate badly and end up picking the worst offer, you're off from your fair compensation by about 10%-15% (approximation). And even at that error margin, the situation will only last for as long as you're in the same company and doing the same thing - which is to say, on average 18 months (that's the normal turn-over period in tech companies).Meanwhile, for an average of 18 months, you're working on something that you either love, or hate (and believe me, there's very little gray area when it comes to long term relationships). So I ask you this: Are you and the company the perfect couple?Here are my company-cultural observations.Disclaimer: I'm obviously biased and these are clearly subjective opinions, but they're at least better than no data point at all. You should definitely talk to more people:Microsoft: Gigantic place. Awesome super-knowledgeable people. Power comes in tiers and information about the company's plans doesn't always transparently flow. You tend to be somewhat aware of your rank in the company and there's a desire to be visible. Obviously once you've been there for a while, you end up on the winning side of that deal. Lots of enterprise-type projects. Most of the problems are related to scaling and optimizing. Innovative projects tend to be in separate silos you need to seek out, but once you're there, it feels like you're a magician. Performance is stacked and measured (are you above median or not). You're working towards gaining authority. The market does not affect your work very frequently - but when it does, it's usually in form of large re-orgs under new management.Google: Very huge, but not yet gigantic (that word is still reserved for Microsoft). Googly people (a**holes are decidedly, positively rooted out in every process: hiring, performance, expectation setting, role models). Both enterprise and consumer-type projects. Power / information flows extremely transparently (you know almost as many secrets as the CEO) so there's a strong sense of loyalty and satisfaction with just being where you are in terms of your level of authority, that's unique. Innovation is built as a 20% part of your schedule and you're incentivized to do something other than your job (but nobody will tell you what to do. It's up to you to make the most of it. And it is hard, because you still have your 80% job). There is a formal performance evaluation, but for the most part systems of teams survive or die on a Darwinian evolutionary basis decided by metrics, and the cells (engineers) are recycled across other projects they fit with if consumer market doesn't bite. Because I currently work here, obviously I'm writing more and there's some positive bias, but I'll gladly admit that for every positive point, there's valid criticism out there.Amazon: I have less insight into it since I only briefly visited before they moved into their latest HQ, but it looked to me like the most important thing there was customer satisfaction and optimization of logistics. They're different from others (IMO) in terms of the need to shine in operational aspect of things. Based on input from friends who have worked there and the job descriptions that I seem to receive weekly in my email, it looks like they have a very distributed structure and innovative projects tend to be organized into independent teams. The unit of investment in the risk portfolio is "product team". You have the Kindle team, the Mechanical Turk team, etc. If you're the R&D type, you should seek out one of the newest most risk-seeking teams.Facebook: I also briefly visited, this year, while they were still in Palo Alto. They were organized like a typical startup (just much bigger, at 2000 employees), trying to maximize cross-team collaboration by physically having people work with each other in as close a proximity as possible, and there was quite a productivity hum to the place. There are videos about their culture on Glassdoor (and you should look at them with some PR bias factored in). I'm sure they're about to grow bigger now after they complete their move to Menlo Park, and are facing the same challenges as bigger companies. When I visited, it felt a lot like Google, where there are very few PMs and the Engineers are the main unit of measurement for everything. The place is much more like Google than Microsoft in look and feel. But there's a distinct feeling of a "celebrity tier" being on top. And while this might statistically prove not too big of an age bias, its average employee age seemed [to me] at least 5 years below its older corporate brethren.Hopefully I won't get in too much trouble for my long and subjective response. I don't know too many people who have visited all 4 companies in the question, so I hope this at least gives some (albeit not statistically representative) context.Summary:Figure out what you love to do.Interview with at least two companies that are most like you.Let them balance out each other's offer. Learn which one you love most.Make the world a better place with your PhD. Five years from now you won't remember what you bought with the marginal extra salary that you got, especially after you've paid almost 40% of it in taxes.

While the article itself could and should have been more specific, I tend to agree with the writer's sentiment, from my own experiences in academia. This may also be contingent on the institution in question, of course.The Anecdotal:I've been in three academic departments over the course of my years in academia. I have seen several very consistent trends in those departments stemming from a breakdown of the apprenticeship model used in graduate schools to mold new academics.1. Abuse of the master-apprentice relationship in interpersonal relationships: I've seen this take many forms, from overtly sexual abuse of the power being an adviser gives professors over students (including professors treating their graduate students like a dating pool) to over-reaches of the ability to shape the student's life. While there is some expectation that the adviser of a student will offer professional advice, and this advice may include advice on dress, interpersonal skills, and/or professional appearance, I have seen it used by advisers to try and essentially "clone" themselves in their students. Your students should be able to have their own personal lives. They should never feel forced to adopt your likes and dislikes, nor should they feel forced to wear colors you like, or to eat things you like, nor should your student have to participate in your feuds, nor should they have to ask before they make new friends, nor should they have to drop friends you don't like, nor should they not be allowed to take classes with professors you're feuding with, etc.2. Abuse of the master-apprentice relationship in professional relationships: I've seen this take many forms, as well, but much of what I've seen can be roughly characterized as the use of graduate students as free labor and/or the unwillingness to allow students any leeway in the things they research for their degree. Graduate students should not ever pick up their adviser's laundry, dry-cleaning, kids, significant other, bar tab and/or to be forced to only pursue topics their adviser is interested in. I understand that specialties force advisers to work in specific parts of fields, but apprentices should get to work on projects which reflect their own interests instead of being forced to finish a doctorate on work their adviser chooses for them. I've seen an incredible amount of bullying between advisers and students, where the student is forced by their adviser to do the work of a doctorate on a subject which has absolutely nothing to do with the path they've chosen for their career. I've also seen advisers use their students' labor without crediting them, or make the student choose between having an adviser and doing a PhD in something they don't care about.3. Abuse of the master-apprentice relationship in administrative or legal matters: I know graduate students in the sciences whose status as international students was used against them, to force them to accept unacceptable work loads, poor funding, and/or to force them to do nearly constant lab work without a day off when the rest of the lab was allowed to have a weekend. I also know students whose advisers have used the power they have over their students to get them to offer support or testimony on their adviser's behalf during pending legal or administrative investigations.4. Abuse of the master-apprentice relationship to sabotage bright students: As the sad cap on these problems, I've also seen advisers deliberately alienate or sabotage students with very high performance scores and a record of excellence. While I'm not a mind-reader, the behavior I observed in these cases and others made it seem very plausible that some advisers were trying to ensure that they would not be "outshone" by their student. This has taken the form of lying to their graduate student about the content of letters of recommendation (saying they had written a positive letter when they had not), belittling the student in classes or in front of peers for factually correct answers or material, making claims about hostility toward the student from other faculty in order to make the student dependent, forgetting to turn in necessary paperwork which effects the student's ability to graduate or get funding, refusing to advocate for their student, and/or ignoring communication from their student. However, the same professors I've seen do this behavior refused to let their student seek another adviser without a fight, making it clear that the students in question would be hard pressed to leave.The Non-Anecdotal:NOTE: I am very specifically using papers here which can be found through google scholar. I know those of us who are academics have access to much better resources than those generally available, and that I could be citing things which are not publicly available. However, Quora is read by more than just academics. I'd like non-academics to be able to read the source material.Many of the incidences I've seen could best be described as workplace mobbing. Mobbing is defined as the non-sexual, systematic devaluation and alienation of an individual by a group of peers, and is usually designed to force the individual to leave the organization. ( http://www.choixdecarriere.com/pdf/6573/2010/DuffySperry2007.pdf )Duffy and Sperry note in the previous paper that incidences of mobbing typically occur in particular kinds of organizations. The organization in question has to be permissive of bullying behavior, typically by not pursuing complaints and/or by promoting individuals who engage in aggressive behaviors. Management has to be a part of this dynamic. Low job satisfaction and a low standard for moral behavior is also a part of organizational cultures which permit mobbing. Accountability standards tend to be unidirectional in those organizations, and results are prioritized. Employees have high work stress, regularly tight deadlines and high job strain. The organizations also tend to be very bureaucratic, and while they have codes of conduct, mobbing is not considered a violation of that code. Incidences of bullying are often attributed to personality conflicts by management, and considered to be the fault of the individual being mobbed. The most common form of workplace bullying in the US is "downward" bullying: the perpetrator is a person in position of authority and the target is a person subordinate to them. (http://www.choixdecarriere.com/pdf/6573/2010/VandekerckhoveCommers2003.pdf)Duffy and Sperry also note that the organizations tend to be educational and governmental. University environments are a fairly good fit for the previous characteristics across the board--as high pressure, bureaucratic, disorganized workplaces in which publication and status are of considerably more importance than almost any other consideration, the conditions in academia are particularly ripe for mobbing.Estimates of the prevalence of workplace mobbing vary, but a common estimate gives the prevalence as roughly 1 in 6, in the US. (http://www.workplacebullying.org/multi/pdf/N-N-2003A.pdf) From the same paper, the Workplace Bullying & Trauma Institute states that only 18% of their respondents were able to get positive or helpful responses on reporting the mobbing. Of the rest, 40% were unable to elicit any response and 42% elicited responses which made their situation worse.Specific to this situation, the power dynamics involved in the apprenticeship model for becoming an academic are particularly weighted in favor of the adviser, both in the sense that the very significant investments involved in getting a doctorate provide incentive to put up with poor behavior for the student, and because the student is considered and treated like a transitory member of the academic community. This creates a culture of silence around academic bullying between an adviser and an advisee--other faculty may be reluctant to interfere so that it does not cause them professional problems beyond the graduation of the student in question (including poor performance evaluations in retaliation for "interference".) It is very hard to find research directly on this phenomena, likely for the previous reasons and because it is possible for an adviser and the power dynamics between faculty to damage the career of the person who makes a public complaint. Very few students are willing to risk losing that investment of time and money, and very few faculty are willing to risk the problems this could entail them to publish on the subject.Anonymous graduate student blogs, however, are less ambiguous, and echo the experiences I listed above. (http://www.pertanika2.upm.edu.my/Pertanika%20PAPERS/JSSH%20Vol.%2019%20(2)%20Sept.%202011/22.pdf)The original question asked about Luan's article. I can't help but feel, after my own experiences and the reading I've done on workplace bullying, organizational dynamics, and power dynamics, that he has a point. As much as I love learning, teaching, writing, and doing research, these conditions beg the question of what academia broadly and institutions in particular are losing in the form of human capital.I'm going to guess that the losses are quite high.

If you read the classification of Aristotle , then you found that Aristotle marked the lowest rank to this type of governance and labeled as “Demo”. He described that it is mutilated state of the governance.Further it is divided into two category:British Type : The P.M is the supreme authority but guided by their party till it possess majority. The american not accepted the Briton version and accepted the French Pattern and also installed the french Statue of liberty.French Type: As opposed to above, it is governed by a President , who is elected directly by the electorate. There is a sense of certainty and performance evaluation is simpler. USA accepted the same.India accepted the Briton type with a modification to Queen with a President. The Electorate have no choice for electing the President.However, it was made by copying the following and blended:Government of India Act,Constitution of United Kingdom, Canada and Australia.But not taken the good element of the french Pattern of Constitution.Our Constitution is more or less good but we need these changes immediately:The invocation of Secular word in the year 1975- 77 period,Introduction of Uniform Civil CodeCapping of number of Child , like China and compulsory sterilisation thereafter,Identification of Infiltrators and NRC will be for the whole country,To detect criminals and block fleeing, all Rail Tickets, Air Tickets, Taxi booking be on Aadhaar number based.All type of bounties, doles, except the old age monthly assistance (a nominal amount) be banned -out of exchequer, It become a vote garnering route,The advertisement with full sized photo of Neta be banned - out of Public Funds. Now any body can use the electronic media, website, app in their own expenses,Pension only be allowed to those persons , who generally risk the life for execution of duties - like Army of any description, BSF, Coast Guard, Police & Fire Fighters. Others will contribute to the pension fund at their volition.To prevent the misuse of Pay Commission, the Government Employee and their spouse can not cast vote during the tenure of their service, they need to be independent.The Pay on roll in Government to be discontinued, instead their employment will be 5 year service in renewable basis.Reservation will be discontinued in phase,The JNU, AMU, JU etc., may be converted in Medical College in phase-wise to meet the shortage of Medical Practitioner, the cost of medical treatment will be neutralised. We have no need of leftist scholars by spending public money. JNU appears as permanent home of the majority of Students.The electorate must be passed at least 12 class, or weightage will be taken 50%, after a cut off date.The Age of voted need to be reinstated to 21 years, Because all quadrants / lobe / area of our brain are not matured in 18 years.For experiment, the state will be governed by a elected Governor, and state M.P will form the legislative house. This will reduce the administrative cost.A healthy debate can be…