From my annual evaluation

[Eagle43]

I've had evaluations that make me want to go hide; some that so impressed me I wanted an autograph. Here's the rub, though. They were meaningless. If you had a sponsor at mega-corp, you went up. If not, you got the usual merit increases and an atta-boy or two.

I don't know what others think, but I am definitely convinced that it's who you know (in the corporate world) that will make the difference. Not true in all cases, but most.

BTW, I never contested the performance report; never fought 'em. Last supvr was annoyed. Said if you don't agree, write something down. I refused, because I was 60 then, and my retirement could not be hosed.

And here I am. Current motto is: If you're independent, who cares what anyone says. The only person who evaluates me is me. (DW exception, of course).

Yep, I'm 60 also and the only person evaluating me is me. I consult DW, but my opinion still trumps hers

JG

[sgeeeee]

Throughout my career, I made sure that I got a copy of the review form from HR and wrote my own glowing review a week or two ahead of the date when management was supposed to have them completed. I was not modest in completing the form. I then supplied the entire thing to my management.

Sometimes they would bother to change a few things, but mostly they were lazy slugs who were happy to be done with the review. If they did change something and I didn't like it, I would make them very uncomfortable discussing the details of why they thought their wording was better than mine.

I always managed to get a review with nothing but positive comments. But it was still an unpleasant experience, and I dont' think it did me any good. At the end of the day, they do whatever they want. If your review justifies what they want to do, then they use it. If not, they screw you for some other reason. :-/

Ooooh, SG; cynical cynical

JG

[Eagle43]

Quote:

Throughout my career, I made sure that I got a copy of the review form from HR and wrote my own glowing review a week or two ahead of the date when management was supposed to have them completed. *I was not modest in completing the form. *I then supplied the entire thing to my management. * Sometimes they would bother to change a few things, but mostly they were lazy slugs who were happy to be done with the review. *If they did change something and I didn't like it, I would make them very uncomfortable discussing the details of why they thought their wording was better than mine. * I always managed to get a review with nothing but positive comments. *But it was still an unpleasant experience, and I dont' think it did me any good. *At the end of the day, they do whatever they want. *If your review justifies what they want to do, then they use it. *If not, they screw you for some other reason. * :-/

In the military, I did the same thing. My supervisors were more than willing (lazy) to let me do the writing. They, however, did the rating. What counted was the ratings, not the verbosity. The performance report could say I had turned water into wine, but if the rater marked me down in any category, then boom the next guy got the promotion, the assignment, etc. Same was true in Mega-Corp.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

All true. First piece of advice I gave all my direct reports was to make sure my boss and their boss knew who they were, and had a positive impression of them. I put them into situations where they'd each get a chance to fix something or provide information to senior management. Usually just bringing them along with me to a meeting with a prepared 3-5 minute update on some critical program or the "good" answer/advice to a problem did the trick.

That glint of recognition was usually more than enough to grease someones promotion, a bigger raise, or some other benefit.

Its all about good PR and image, substance is secondary.

Quote:

Its all about good PR and image, substance is secondary.

Hmm.. if PR is equated to politics, I would agree. Thing is if you sign up to have a corporate job especially to move up in it thus reaping the financial benefits in order to put stuff likes annual eval behind, then it's all part of the deal.
Substance without political savvy gets creamed. Political savviness without talent can get by and sometimes succeed but that's just hard work of a different kind. A combination of both is usually the best.

Looking back, I can generalize my experiences as follows:
- I said things that made me feel good but intended for my boss to feel bad. Result=negative back lash on me
- I said things that made me feel bad but intended on buttering up my boss. Result=mixed depending on the boss.
- I said things that are intended to achieve some mutually beneficial goals regardless of personalities. Result=most of the times, this works out to my benefits.

[retire@40]

All this talk about "bosses" and being "bossed" around and worrying about what your "boss" says about you is really making me ill. Doesn't just saying you have a "boss" depress you? Doesn't it make you feel like a sub-human?

I guess since I only worked for a big corporation for less than a year and only had the bad taste of one 6-month review in my life, I have a hard time relating to all this.

I can't see how people can go through life with the idea they have a "boss" telling them what to do 8 hours a day. Makes me want to puke. I just hate the term "boss" or even worse, the term "supervisor" or "superior."

If I had to work in a company again, I think I would use a word like "client" or "customer" instead of "boss" or "superior." At least it would give me the impression that I'm not working under them, but that they are a commodity I could replace by finding another client for whom to perform my work.

[Martha]

When I did reviews of associates I tried to turn it into a discussion. I did collect comments (written or oral, whatever I could get) from those who regularly worked with the associate. I would emphasize I wanted facts and examples--no opinions allowed without facts to back it up. I'll tell you that was tough. For example, I had one lawyer who didn't work much with a particular associate in his department. I asked why. He said he didn't like her "presence". Needless to say I questioned him extensively as to what he meant by presence. Another lawyer questioned an associate's "commitment". Again I had to quiz him as to what that meant. Words like presence, commitment, energy, etc are not helpful.

I would then have a discussion with the associate and talk about the examples. Generally the reviews seemed to go well in that we would have an actual discussion and even do some planning for the future.

Martha

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Quote:

All this talk about "bosses" and being "bossed" around and worrying about what your "boss" says about you is really making me ill. Doesn't just saying you have a "boss" depress you? Doesn't it make you feel like a sub-human?

I dont know about you guys, but I still have a boss.

She doesnt give me annual performance evaluations though. Which is probably a good thing.

[sgeeeee]

Quote:

All this talk about "bosses" and being "bossed" around and worrying about what your "boss" says about you is really making me ill. *Doesn't just saying you have a "boss" depress you? Doesn't it make you feel like a sub-human? . . .

I was thinking along these same lines after my previous post. I guess I never accepted anyone as my superior. To me my "boss" or "supervisor" was just someone who had a different job than me. He or she had different requirements than I did. I always tried to understand their position, its goals and how I could most help them succeed. They didn't always make it easy.

I felt the same way about my own position as a "supervisor". I knew that the position did not make me superior in any way. I had no reason to be intimidated or insecure about people who were brighter or more creative than I was. They made me look good. And if I could get them promoted and placed in higher places, it didn't hurt me at all. I have to admit that I was really lucky. I "supervised" literally hundreds of people during my career and can only remember one that I couldn't find any way to work with effectively. Most were well above average and many went on to accomplish great things -- in different ways. And maybe most important to me, I still communicate with dozens of them on a regular basis.

[Brat]

Brewer, don't be a snitch unless you have a legal obligation to do so. Your next employer will wonder how his/her flaws will look in your next parting missive. Just hope that when it blows up you are out of there.

The one and only time I sent a letter I only asked one question of a 'member of the board'. It was a very nice letter, didn't hint of mismanagement. The situation was costing my employer a bundle. It was effective.

When I was a young man I used the threat of being a
"snitch" to gain some leverage in a situation I was leaving under less than friendly circumstances.
Never would have done it though and would not.
It can be a tactic to get someone's attention

JG

[Hyperborea]

Quote:

All this talk about "bosses" and being "bossed" around and worrying about what your "boss" says about you is really making me ill. *Doesn't just saying you have a "boss" depress you? Doesn't it make you feel like a sub-human?

I'm not sure what the German translation for "boss" is but there was a situation a number of years ago where I was dealing with a German guy who's English wasn't so great. He didn't like my answer to a question he had asked (I had honestly told him that our team wouldn't be able to do a task for him) and so he wanted to speak to my "disciplinarian".

Quote:

I'm not sure what the German translation for "boss" is but there was a situation a number of years ago where I was dealing with a German guy who's English wasn't so great. *He didn't like my answer to a question he had asked (I had honestly told him that our team wouldn't be able to do a task for him) and so he wanted to speak to my "disciplinarian".

As far as the German Boss-thing, "Fuehrer" will do (mmmm, where did that word make history earlier?). It is not the exact translation but it seems to fit quite often.

My first job was with an engineering company. As part of a condition of my employment I told them that I was not willing to work in Germany. Within weeks, I was out there for an extended period of time. They are crazy..... The only good thing over there was that they are always very punctual. Can't think of anything else positive though. Quit this damn job after a couple of months.

Vicky

[brewer12345]

Quote:

As far as the German Boss-thing, "Fuehrer" will do (mmmm, where did that word make history earlier?). It is not the exact translation but it seems to fit quite often. My first job was with an engineering company. As part of a condition of my employment I told them that I was not willing to work in Germany. Within weeks, I was out there for an extended period of time. They are crazy..... The only good thing over there was that they are always very punctual. Can't think of anything else positive though. Quit this damn job after a couple of months. Vicky

Actually, I think there is a lot of good to be said about the Germans, as long as you don't have to work for/with them.

[lets-retire]

Talking of promotions, when I was in the military I took great pride in the fact that all but one of my troops who took the test to promote past it. The one who didn't had a major blunder and a very poor review prior to me supervising him. Now that I'm at the bottom again, I look at my supervisors and complete a mental eveluation on them. Most I would rate the same as mine, mostly due to the lack of job knowledge and the intricacies of the legal system.

The DW recently had one of those quasi-promotions. The team she is now assigned completes about 40% of the company's dollar production. Not bad for a team of three. They changed the bonus schedule so it is based on the entire company's production. Her automated coworkers have less work per unit however they can only complete 20% of the dollar value per day. The "elite" team gets pushed harder to increase their workload so everyone can make bonus. The most they can get in bonus is 15% of pay, which is about $300 after taxes per month. Really makes me want to work an extra 15-20 hours per week.

[Nords]

I hear the Navy is considering 360-degree peer evaluations.

The troops would be able to log on to a workstation and rate their chain of command according to fixed criteria on a sliding scale (no written feedback, just multiple choice). Their identities would either be hidden or known only to their CO (depending on who's designing the system). The averages of their input would be discussed by the reporting senior with the ratee at their next performance review.

It's not intended to be a popularity contest, but it'd certainly separate the "leaders" from the "supervisors".

Anyone have a similar system in their service or workplace?

[cute fuzzy bunny]

We had one, although written input along with ratings were included.

While it sounds good on paper, the system can be played. Anyone can autonomously submit input, although when that happens its usually someone who is pissed at the reviewee. I always figured if you got through a full year in a large company without making someone mad about something, you probably didnt do much.

Some managers wishing ill on an employee would invite criticism...err..input from the people that they knew would provide negative input. Some 360 providers would take the opportunity to provide input to also blame someone else for their mistakes and shortcomings. Some managers coached their employees to cultivate a dozen or so people to provide them with high quality input.

So while it can be a useful tool, like all other tools it is easily mis-used.

[brewer12345]

Man, I think I got the special "de-motivational" bonus last week with my review, because I have had absolutely zero interest in doing any actual work today, other than scanning job openings.