The original idea came from a simple observation: we have platforms to evaluate companies, professors, even doctors, but almost nothing focused specifically on managers, even though they have a huge impact on day-to-day work.
What’s been most surprising so far isn’t the technical side, it’s the reaction.
The strongest pushback I’ve gotten has been from managers themselves.
Common concerns: - fear of reputational damage from a small number of reviews - worry that anonymous feedback invites bias or retaliation - skepticism that rating them is fair
At the same time, many employees I’ve spoken to say they would have made very different career decisions if they had more visibility into what a manager was actually like.
To try to balance this, I’ve been experimenting with constraints: - no free-text reviews (only structured categories like communication, supportiveness, etc.) - everything framed as “perceived” rather than objective truth - limiting reviews per user to reduce spam or pile-ons
Even with that, the tension doesn’t go away, it just becomes clearer.
It raises some harder questions: - Is this fundamentally unfair to managers, or just uncomfortable transparency? - Has upper management just become comfortable with their behaviour hidden behind corporate politics?
Curious how others think about this, especially from both sides: - if you’re an IC, would you trust/use something like this? - if you’re a manager, what would make this feel fair (if anything)?