Most larger businesses have annual (or even semi-annual) performance reviews. In our workplace, the employees are expected to initiate the process by filling in the intranet forms and scheduling a meeting with their manager. 

Generally, the manager already has a performance grade in mind that determines the year's bonus payment, so the meeting is mostly a chance for the employee to calibrate his perception of his performance against the manager's. 

Because the grade affects the bonus payment, of course everybody tries to convince the manager to raise the grade a notch. This introduces an aspect of timing. It's the classic situation:

* If you go first, the manager will not have spent all bonus resources yet, but if you go last, there will be nothing left to bargain about.
* On the other hand, the meetings are discussed unofficially in the team. So by going last you might be able to present a winning argument that emerged during the discussions.
* At the same time, people don't openly coordinate their scheduling, so it's difficult to aim for a specific position in the sequence of manager meetings. You can only hope to be among the first (by proactively scheduling that meeting), or among the last (by not scheduling until being reminded twice).

What are the benefits and drawbacks of going first, or last, in that sequence? **What factors could help an employee decide whether to be first, or last, in the manager meetings?**

I'm reposting this because I got a server error while posting the first time. If it ends up being a dupe, I'll remove one of them. (Yes, I lost the text so I had to retype it! This time, I'll Ctrl-A Ctrl-C before submitting. Live and learn.)