In my company, years ago, performance rating was done by your line manager just talking to your project manager(s) to find out how you were getting on, and the line manager would assign you a pay rise (or not) accordingly. This was a perfectly sane and workable system.
Then the place got engulfed by this insane fad for "performance reviews", which is idiotic on its face for a number of reasons:
1. You request review feedback from peers - this is unworkable because if you work with someone who is useless, and you say so in their review, your working relationship with them becomes untenable;
2. The process also requires "self review", which is nothing but a mechanism for bullshitters to big themselves up. It is also time-consuming, and good people are generally too busy to dedicate much time to it; the bullshitters and timewasters otoh will happily dedicate days to polishing their lies and exaggerations;
3. In general the process massively favours those who play the performance review system, i.e. the politicians;
4. You are required to set "career objectives", which is almost entirely pointless since as a tech person you are largely constrained by what jobs need your skills at the particular moment you become available; there is little tolerance for people sitting around idle waiting for the perfect role that meets their desired objective.
> In my company, years ago, performance rating was done by your line manager just talking to your project manager(s) to find out how you were getting on, and the line manager would assign you a pay rise (or not) accordingly. This was a perfectly sane and workable system.
That sounds very much like "hiring people based on having a reasonable conversation about their experience.” It is a perfectly sane and reasonable system, provided everyone involved is acting in good faith, has a great deal of ability to evaluate people based on their actual contribution to the success of the company, and nobody has any overt or internalized biases.
Without taking anything away from your company, I’m sure you will appreciate that in many companies, this business of “assigning you a bonus based on conversations with the project manager(s)” gets twisted into a horrible political game where people build fiefdoms based on tit-for-tat agreements, and where all sorts of biases come into play, e.g. the men are all “take-charge go-getters,” while the women are all “confrontational and bossy.”
I’m saying nothing about performance evaluations being better, just that results like you have experienced with your company are remarkably difficult to reproduce and sustain.
My bet is that if conversation works in your company, performance evaluations would also work. Maybe with more annoying paperwork involved, but it would still work.
We possibly work for the same company, as our system - flaws and all - are identical to what you describe. As someone who has to carry out both sides of the process (reviewing staff/managing them through the process, and getting my own review done), I'm most certainly not a fan! Staff seem to fall into two categories - those who see the whole thing as political nonsense they don't have the time for, or have become so turned off by how bad it is that they just don't care about the outcome any more.
The Accenture news was raised on an internal discussion about the review process almost immediately, as some people are that keen to get rid of the current way of doing things ASAP. Sadly, I can't see anything coming from it, as the word is that Upper Management values the generated metrics too much to change anything.
One of those software management coaches once complained about this structure, "instead of celebrating people for their strengths, we punish them for their weaknesses". Most companies have enough people that as long as I'm really good at three things and we all know which three things I'm terrible at, everybody gets what they need and the company flourishes.
Instead we all have to be identical, and our "development plan" is all about getting better at doing things that normally I'd let somebody else take care of, because they will always be better at it than I am. No big raise for me, even though I've saved you two headcount and reduced regressions by a factor of four by improving the dev process and toolchain.
In this case, I'd say number 2 is your fault. Your company has clearly told you that they care more about what you write in your self review than in actually getting stuff done. Those people have realized this, and are simply giving the company what they asked for.
It's sad and sort of amusing that most people here seem to be misunderstanding the point of this entirely. Unfortunately, this is likely prophetic of the way people within Accenture will misunderstand this too.
Most of the grievances in comments here at this point are not so much about the feedback system as about the pay system. There is no mention in the article of "pay", "compensation", "salary", "reward", or any other word talking about the pay system. There is no indication that this is what's being operated on. What is happening is that they're replacing a yearly feedback process with a continuous feedback process.
That's very worthwhile, but it won't solve issues with the pay system, or with politics, or with people "playing the game", etc. It just means that people will have more regular feedback. That's good in and of itself, but it won't suddenly transform the company or turn it upside down.
Now, at the same time, reading this CEO's statement, and comparing it with the sort of stuff that was being said when I was working there, this guy seems positively enlightened. I hope this is just one piece in a pattern of many different things he'll be changing at Accenture. If it is, then there could be large scale change in Accenture.
As it is, this is just one encouraging bit of change around the feedback process. NOT a change of the pay model. NOT something that will get rid of politics in the pay model. NOT something that will majorly change the culture. JUST something that will encourage everyone to operate in the way that good managers (of which there are many at Accenture) already operated.
To be fair the pay was actually pretty good. I think the problem with a system like this is that it forces employees into one of two strategies with no middle ground.
1. Be super competitive and always aim to be ranked at the very top, to the detriment of working on your technical skills that don't help here.
2. See that the only winning move is not to play and ignore the ranking, focusing instead on gaining experience and forming a long term exit plan.
I saw lots of examples of both tribes but not much in between.
i think this hits the nail on the head. The real problem is the terrible managers, where the only time they even considered their direct reports performance, was during the annual performance reviews. Now, since there is no formal mechanism or check in place, they won't even do that. Are they better or worse off? I don't know.
The regular "laddering" process was a massive pain and a huge burden on staff that took away from doing real work. It also had the effect of forcing the most talented people out of the company as they tended to focus on actually building the things the clients wanted rather than playing the ranking game. Ranking was strongly correlated to time spent in the office rather than achievements or output.
I don't think this will change the mindset internally although it's a positive move. There is a big company culture of not trying to excel at anything for fear of making a mistake and looking bad. The firm is also full of jokers who haven't got a clue about software and don't even think it's a technology company. Lots of politics too.
"""The firm is also full of jokers who haven't got a clue about software and don't even think it's a technology company."""
From (limited) experience this is true for many technology consultants. Unfortunately it's also somewhat common practice for business software projects that involve a small/medium sized software company and a gigantic client that the client requires the involvement of Accure et al. to feel more secure.
Sadly it is not uncommon to have the consulting "software experts" do nonsensical tasks just so that they are not touching important stuff.
These days, I am very skeptical about getting involved in any software projects that involve big name consultants.
It sounds like you have experience of the firm. I'm interested in tech consulting and was planning on applying after graduation. Would you advise against this? Are there any firms in a similar line of work that you would recommend? (This question is open anyone on HN who wants to chip in).
But does this actually mean faster promotion cycles?
I worked for Accenture for a bit and decided to quit when they would use technicalities to deny promotions. As a matter of fact, I was denied promotions for three cycles because I joined 2-3 weeks too late. Basically, because I joined the firm 2-3 weeks after the big yearly review, I wasn't eligible for any promotion for two years whereas if I had been given a start date a month earlier I would have been eligible after a year.
I left and more than doubled my salary, work on newer technologies, largely in charge of my own schedule, can work anywhere in the world, and received promotions faster.
“Employees that do best in performance management systems tend to be the employees that are the most narcissistic and self-promoting,” said Brian Kropp, the HR practice leader for CEB. “Those aren’t necessarily the employees you need to be the best organization going forward.”
Maybe I'm fooling myself and I really am narcissistic. But my feeling is that it's not narcissism but simply a rational adaptation to the conditions. What I do when you put a self-review form in front of me, is similar to what I do as a musician when you put some sheet music in front of me: Play the notes and try to make the audience happy.
What does a musician do when after his show, some record company exec puts a self-review form in front of him? To fuck off with the worthless piece of paper, if he has any self respect.
Read the fine print. They are not getting rid of performance reviews and rankings. They are removing the useless yearly conversation that formally informed the employee of what they already knew.
I worked for Accenture, as well as its first incarnation Andersen Consulting, and in my experience the reviews that really mattered were the so-called role reviews. Roles are jobs at a client. Every role reports to a more senior Accenture employee who assigns scores as a judgment on performance. The annual review, held with one's career counselor, is a chat largely about the scores assigned to one from roles in the current year. The scores from roles add up to a number and that number is essentially the annual review.
In this policy change, Accenture is simply removing a useless impotent non-position. It does nothing to curb the recency effect, for example, pernicious in the role review. That said, Accenture's process is more enlightened than most approaches to the formal review.
Annual reviews are too coarse of a tool to be effective. They cause stress for employees because a year's worth of feedback gets dumped on them at once. It is difficult to condense a year's worth of issues, praises, concerns, props, and feedback into a one-hour meeting. Reducing people to a set of numbers often leads to negative feelings.
Good relationships, be it professional or otherwise, are based on effective communication. An ongoing conversation between managers and their reports is the best way for a manager to know what is going on and be connected, and for an employee to feel heard and in-touch. This conversation must be continuous and embrace all aspects of a employee-manager relationship.
I've been working for over three years on a service called 15Five which is a tool for such communication. It is neat to hear how people use this service in their organizations as an alternative to annual reviews.
I feel there is a growing shift away from quantified annual reviews and into more conversational feedback loops.
Well there is a school of thought that says the only "new" feedback you should be getting in your annual review is very recent feedback. Negative, constructive of course, should be being brought up earlier in the year in order to give you a chance to correct that behaviour - after all that is the point of developing an individual. Traditionally this is what the 6 month, mid period, halfway etc review is for - giving feedback and reviewing the objectives your annual appraisal will be based on.
Being criticised by a colleague for something they've failed to bring up until now is a sign it clearly isn't that serious. Having a manager sit on negative feedback until the review is a sign of a very bad manager. In both cases I'd be pushing strongly back.
i think the largest obstacle is that performance bonuses are still paid ANNUALLY. If I have an amazing Q1/Q2/Q3, but a terrible Q4, guess what happens when payouts come around? Manager remembers the last thing you did.
if the industry really wants to transform performance, pay them out monthly or quarterly
The real answer is, they dont want to. In fact, I suspect you will see an industry trend to disband performance bonuses for all non C-level employees over the next 5-10 years.
As someone who has to give the news about the review outcome, I can confirm this from my own experience as well. Pretty much only those who come out of it as "top-tier" get any benefit, and no amount of "spin" will cushion the news of anything lesser. Of course, this isn't helped by there being an enforced normalisation curve on the ratings…
Even excellent scores can be demotivating. When one is blocked from internal career movement due to being 'too valuable to the team', and when the only reward on offer is a nice pat-on-the-back and a thumbs-up; One starts to wonder how much less work it would take to drop down to just 'good'.
I generally got excellents on performance reviews for my brief, entry level stint at Big Corp.
I still felt demotivated by the whole process, because it was a forced ranking of the system that wasted the whole teams time to say what everyone had already known: some of us did more work, some of us did less, and some of us were on a faster upward trajectory than others.
It turns out that it doesn't actually motivate any of your employees to throw social hierarchies in their face -- it only causes tension and undue focus on micro-social hierarchies (those heiarchies within a social class, eg, the hierarchy of entry level tech workers).
Actually I find when I've gotten an excellent review it's encouraged a little complacency immediately after. Good feedback after a single assignment doesn't seem to do that.
As someone who typically is a top performer, I found the dance just added overhead. I must keep tallies of all my "goals" and lists of everything I've accomplished in every respective category, and then waste hours cranking out my side of the review. Sure, I don't have time for it, so I make time for it, meaning less time for sleep.
A good manager should know what you're contributing without this kabuki theater.
There are various firms that use a quarterly review/bonus cycle. While great, this fails to account for the slow moving hulks that are US corporations. Remember, in most places you'll not get in your "Annual Goals" until March/April, will have you mid year review done in September, and then have your annual review due by early November (lest people's year end vacations be a problem). How could you possibly hope for management to promulgate their vision and read a sheet of paper in 3 months or less?
Perhaps Profit Sharing is the better angle? At ZoomInfo, each quarter everyone gets a bonus based on the company profits of the quarter, distributed ~equally. If every everyone did a great job and company did well, everyone gets a bigger bonus. Not as great for the rockstars, but it's an incentive for everyone to work together. Of course, if the market is down, it will fail to incentivize people working their asses off to keep the company afloat.
What a few big name companies (e.g. Microsoft) are getting rid of is the "forced bell curve fit" rankings. The core issue supposedly that team members are loathe to help anyone else succeed as that may not benefit them in the appraisal.
Have heard that, in the new model, your manager gets a lot more liberty in deciding how to distribute the appraisal budget for the team instead of the hikes simply following a company-wide rule depending on the employee's rating tier.
My ex-employer went the opposite direction at the beginning of this year: moving towards appraisal related pay, complete with explanations of how management were being given special training on how to fit people to the right overall grade and even fewer top ratings were given out to make the whole thing cost neutral. You may be surprised to learn the process was not greeted by enthusiastic cheers.
As a former employee (I actually used to work in the office in the picture), I have to say I am very surprised and impressed by this move. I once had a manager on a multi year oracle and Java implementation who didn't know what a database was. That is no exaggeration. I mean that literally. One of my most frustrating memories was being reliant on this person for performance reviews and staking my future on her opinion of my performance. She had no ability to assess anybody's performance, yet miraculously found herself in the position of reviewing many very good employees. We lost several team members as a result (in fact my experience there in large part set the course for my own departure).
Not saying this will fix all the problems (inept management is a reality that exists in any organization of size) but it at least shows that top brass understands that the current system isn't working.
At my company we spend so much time on reviews it borders on the ridiculous and everyone is pretty much of the opinion they really don't matter unless the company wants to get rid of you at some point.
Yes it is better to point out the shortcoming right after completion of a project rather than reminding about that after a whole fucking year. This will benefit both employees and managers alike.
So many comments here reflecting ideas from the 2002 book "Abolishing Performance Appraisals - Why They Backfire and What to Do Instead".
I think it's well worth a read, especially if you're implementing or in a position to influence these sorts of processes.
Feedback is important, but once a year/half/quarter isn't really doing it. And ideally it shouldn't be related to what you're paid, though that's harder to convince people. It can work though, and the book provides some examples of alternatives.
Speaking as someone who has worked with Accenture people on a government contract, Accenture is the most hellish employer I have had any kind of near-direct experience with. Between the mandatory, unpaid social events, annual performance reports, monthly performance reports, weekly performance reports (which, due to scheduling, needed to be done before the month or week in question), the "career counsellor (who, according to those who worked for Accenture, was mind-bogglingly stupid), the Accenture manager (who made Dilbert's pointy-haired boss look competent and effective), and the assorted other inanities of government work, I wouldn't have lasted with them two months.
I won't work for IBM again because I've experienced their insanity, but I know people who were happy there; I wouldn't recommend Accenture to anyone, literally including Hitler.
Finally!
It was very disappointing that girl that smile and had good relationships with out senior manager had the same salary as me, even if i got the best score in our delivery center.
Doesn't equal pay legislation mean that in practise if you got a pay rise, assuming you're male, that any female doing what might appear in court to be the same job has to get the same pay rise??
I remember seeing a Show HN a while back to fill the void for ongoing performance feedback, which sounded interesting. I dug up the post and here is the site: http://finchreviews.com/
There's plans for the company I work for to remove their old system of reviews too. It was supposedly introduced to cut some chaff and instill a high performance culture but it resulted in arbitrary performance ratings and both unhappy employees and managers.
Also bad IMO are fixed number of job positions. For factories it might make sense, but for many other jobs... It is one of the reasons why I feel that employment anti-discrimination laws are ineffective.
[+] [-] tragomaskhalos|10 years ago|reply
Then the place got engulfed by this insane fad for "performance reviews", which is idiotic on its face for a number of reasons:
1. You request review feedback from peers - this is unworkable because if you work with someone who is useless, and you say so in their review, your working relationship with them becomes untenable;
2. The process also requires "self review", which is nothing but a mechanism for bullshitters to big themselves up. It is also time-consuming, and good people are generally too busy to dedicate much time to it; the bullshitters and timewasters otoh will happily dedicate days to polishing their lies and exaggerations;
3. In general the process massively favours those who play the performance review system, i.e. the politicians;
4. You are required to set "career objectives", which is almost entirely pointless since as a tech person you are largely constrained by what jobs need your skills at the particular moment you become available; there is little tolerance for people sitting around idle waiting for the perfect role that meets their desired objective.
[+] [-] braythwayt|10 years ago|reply
That sounds very much like "hiring people based on having a reasonable conversation about their experience.” It is a perfectly sane and reasonable system, provided everyone involved is acting in good faith, has a great deal of ability to evaluate people based on their actual contribution to the success of the company, and nobody has any overt or internalized biases.
Without taking anything away from your company, I’m sure you will appreciate that in many companies, this business of “assigning you a bonus based on conversations with the project manager(s)” gets twisted into a horrible political game where people build fiefdoms based on tit-for-tat agreements, and where all sorts of biases come into play, e.g. the men are all “take-charge go-getters,” while the women are all “confrontational and bossy.”
I’m saying nothing about performance evaluations being better, just that results like you have experienced with your company are remarkably difficult to reproduce and sustain.
My bet is that if conversation works in your company, performance evaluations would also work. Maybe with more annoying paperwork involved, but it would still work.
[+] [-] __chrismc|10 years ago|reply
The Accenture news was raised on an internal discussion about the review process almost immediately, as some people are that keen to get rid of the current way of doing things ASAP. Sadly, I can't see anything coming from it, as the word is that Upper Management values the generated metrics too much to change anything.
[+] [-] hinkley|10 years ago|reply
Instead we all have to be identical, and our "development plan" is all about getting better at doing things that normally I'd let somebody else take care of, because they will always be better at it than I am. No big raise for me, even though I've saved you two headcount and reduced regressions by a factor of four by improving the dev process and toolchain.
Oh, you're surprised I gave my two weeks?
[+] [-] aarondf|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] s73v3r|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swombat|10 years ago|reply
Most of the grievances in comments here at this point are not so much about the feedback system as about the pay system. There is no mention in the article of "pay", "compensation", "salary", "reward", or any other word talking about the pay system. There is no indication that this is what's being operated on. What is happening is that they're replacing a yearly feedback process with a continuous feedback process.
That's very worthwhile, but it won't solve issues with the pay system, or with politics, or with people "playing the game", etc. It just means that people will have more regular feedback. That's good in and of itself, but it won't suddenly transform the company or turn it upside down.
Now, at the same time, reading this CEO's statement, and comparing it with the sort of stuff that was being said when I was working there, this guy seems positively enlightened. I hope this is just one piece in a pattern of many different things he'll be changing at Accenture. If it is, then there could be large scale change in Accenture.
As it is, this is just one encouraging bit of change around the feedback process. NOT a change of the pay model. NOT something that will get rid of politics in the pay model. NOT something that will majorly change the culture. JUST something that will encourage everyone to operate in the way that good managers (of which there are many at Accenture) already operated.
[+] [-] jsingleton|10 years ago|reply
1. Be super competitive and always aim to be ranked at the very top, to the detriment of working on your technical skills that don't help here.
2. See that the only winning move is not to play and ignore the ranking, focusing instead on gaining experience and forming a long term exit plan.
I saw lots of examples of both tribes but not much in between.
[+] [-] spydum|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsingleton|10 years ago|reply
I don't think this will change the mindset internally although it's a positive move. There is a big company culture of not trying to excel at anything for fear of making a mistake and looking bad. The firm is also full of jokers who haven't got a clue about software and don't even think it's a technology company. Lots of politics too.
[+] [-] kriro|10 years ago|reply
From (limited) experience this is true for many technology consultants. Unfortunately it's also somewhat common practice for business software projects that involve a small/medium sized software company and a gigantic client that the client requires the involvement of Accure et al. to feel more secure. Sadly it is not uncommon to have the consulting "software experts" do nonsensical tasks just so that they are not touching important stuff.
These days, I am very skeptical about getting involved in any software projects that involve big name consultants.
[+] [-] pjmlp|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] avnfish|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] talk_about_pay|10 years ago|reply
I worked for Accenture for a bit and decided to quit when they would use technicalities to deny promotions. As a matter of fact, I was denied promotions for three cycles because I joined 2-3 weeks too late. Basically, because I joined the firm 2-3 weeks after the big yearly review, I wasn't eligible for any promotion for two years whereas if I had been given a start date a month earlier I would have been eligible after a year.
I left and more than doubled my salary, work on newer technologies, largely in charge of my own schedule, can work anywhere in the world, and received promotions faster.
[+] [-] __abc|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pcurve|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] analog31|10 years ago|reply
Maybe I'm fooling myself and I really am narcissistic. But my feeling is that it's not narcissism but simply a rational adaptation to the conditions. What I do when you put a self-review form in front of me, is similar to what I do as a musician when you put some sheet music in front of me: Play the notes and try to make the audience happy.
[+] [-] kyllo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sooheon|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] systemtrigger|10 years ago|reply
I worked for Accenture, as well as its first incarnation Andersen Consulting, and in my experience the reviews that really mattered were the so-called role reviews. Roles are jobs at a client. Every role reports to a more senior Accenture employee who assigns scores as a judgment on performance. The annual review, held with one's career counselor, is a chat largely about the scores assigned to one from roles in the current year. The scores from roles add up to a number and that number is essentially the annual review.
In this policy change, Accenture is simply removing a useless impotent non-position. It does nothing to curb the recency effect, for example, pernicious in the role review. That said, Accenture's process is more enlightened than most approaches to the formal review.
[+] [-] plonh|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] koliber|10 years ago|reply
Good relationships, be it professional or otherwise, are based on effective communication. An ongoing conversation between managers and their reports is the best way for a manager to know what is going on and be connected, and for an employee to feel heard and in-touch. This conversation must be continuous and embrace all aspects of a employee-manager relationship.
I've been working for over three years on a service called 15Five which is a tool for such communication. It is neat to hear how people use this service in their organizations as an alternative to annual reviews.
I feel there is a growing shift away from quantified annual reviews and into more conversational feedback loops.
[+] [-] cmdkeen|10 years ago|reply
Being criticised by a colleague for something they've failed to bring up until now is a sign it clearly isn't that serious. Having a manager sit on negative feedback until the review is a sign of a very bad manager. In both cases I'd be pushing strongly back.
[+] [-] spydum|10 years ago|reply
if the industry really wants to transform performance, pay them out monthly or quarterly
The real answer is, they dont want to. In fact, I suspect you will see an industry trend to disband performance bonuses for all non C-level employees over the next 5-10 years.
[+] [-] davotoula|10 years ago|reply
Can confirm, both employees that receive good score but not excellent and average score not good are demotivated.
Only the excellent minority is motivated.
[+] [-] __chrismc|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frobozz|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ObviousScience|10 years ago|reply
I still felt demotivated by the whole process, because it was a forced ranking of the system that wasted the whole teams time to say what everyone had already known: some of us did more work, some of us did less, and some of us were on a faster upward trajectory than others.
It turns out that it doesn't actually motivate any of your employees to throw social hierarchies in their face -- it only causes tension and undue focus on micro-social hierarchies (those heiarchies within a social class, eg, the hierarchy of entry level tech workers).
[+] [-] rayiner|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|10 years ago|reply
Surely a minority of the excellent minority that 1) get recognised as excellent and 2) are motivated by such recognition.
[+] [-] twistedpair|10 years ago|reply
A good manager should know what you're contributing without this kabuki theater.
[+] [-] scotty79|10 years ago|reply
If your employees leave you in two years max anyways, excuse or no excuse, there's not much point having this excuse.
[+] [-] zitterbewegung|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twistedpair|10 years ago|reply
Perhaps Profit Sharing is the better angle? At ZoomInfo, each quarter everyone gets a bonus based on the company profits of the quarter, distributed ~equally. If every everyone did a great job and company did well, everyone gets a bigger bonus. Not as great for the rockstars, but it's an incentive for everyone to work together. Of course, if the market is down, it will fail to incentivize people working their asses off to keep the company afloat.
[+] [-] Rambunctious|10 years ago|reply
Have heard that, in the new model, your manager gets a lot more liberty in deciding how to distribute the appraisal budget for the team instead of the hikes simply following a company-wide rule depending on the employee's rating tier.
[+] [-] notahacker|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dkrich|10 years ago|reply
Not saying this will fix all the problems (inept management is a reality that exists in any organization of size) but it at least shows that top brass understands that the current system isn't working.
[+] [-] sigzero|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nitin_flanker|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] delibes|10 years ago|reply
I think it's well worth a read, especially if you're implementing or in a position to influence these sorts of processes.
Feedback is important, but once a year/half/quarter isn't really doing it. And ideally it shouldn't be related to what you're paid, though that's harder to convince people. It can work though, and the book provides some examples of alternatives.
[+] [-] mcguire|10 years ago|reply
I won't work for IBM again because I've experienced their insanity, but I know people who were happy there; I wouldn't recommend Accenture to anyone, literally including Hitler.
[+] [-] btd|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] binarymax|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdbaldry|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yuhong|10 years ago|reply