Job Evaluation

[newellcr]

Ouch.  About 10 years ago here the HR department thought it would be a good idea for the employees to rate the ‘team’ ‘leaders’ and ‘managers’ it was endorsed by our executives.  We were even told we could replace our team leaders if we decided to do it as a team.  It was a hilarious failure.  The employees were brutally honest as opposed to previous organizational evaluations using the number scan sheets.  More than a few team leaders were on the hot seat and in a face saving attempt by the upper management, they were moved elsewhere. 

Next year and all of the following year we had various flavors of organizational evaluations, but no more ratings of team leaders and managers…  As Ginger said “The annual review process is a formality and the raises are usually pre-determined.” and as far as I was able to figure out there were no repercussions.

I don’t believe I work for a typical organization, but figured I’d share the story.  Maybe you guys will enjoy this interview with the honest boss, http://www.hallmark.com/wcsstore/HallmarkStore/images/products/ecards/nfg1969.swf

Cheers,

Chris

 

[Sue]

That interview is so funny!

 

[SteveR]

We have job reviews and performance evaluations.  I review several folks who work for me.   It can be tough for folks on both sides of the desk.  I would not want to be in your shoes cube_rat.

Our company also has anonymous suggestion boxes.  Why not put your original post in a suggestion box?  Or send it anonymously to the head honchess?

I have been doing reviews of employees for many years. It is not easy especially with all the "help" you get from HR and management where the "flavor of the month" evaluation program is dumped on middle management with no say in the matter. Add to that the relative inability to rate people truly objectively or to provide real wage increases beyond a few tenths of a percent from one person to another. Oh, and if a realy good performer is a long term employee that has chosen to not be promoted or cannot find a new job due to headcount restraints, then that person may not even get an increase due to being too high in their salary range. Average salary increases this year were 3.5%; the spread between a really good performer and an average one was directed to be 1-2% from the average but in reality due to a limited amount of merit increase funds, the real amounts fall much closer to the 3.5 %. This is done to prevent a person who is doing average work from getting no increase to be able to supplement a larger increase to someone who is doing somewhat better work. If the system was really intended to reward outstanding work then there would be no caps on the total amount of money available; just the percentages allowed for a specific performance rating.



It is hard to provide much motivation for anybody with these systems.

 

[Spanky]

Yes, performance review is a formality. Your raise, if any, has already been determined before the onset of the review. Management has already determined the amount you will receive even before they ask for the feedback from others and your accomplishments for the review. It's your responsibility to be in aliance with your boss and coworkers and to perform PR (raise visibility) about your work at all times.

 

[Lazarus]

What then is the motovation to be a top performer? 80 Hours a week and **s kissing for 1% more. Or just be average and do a good job and work 40 hours. Do what you are told. When they get rid of you because your job is overseas or whatever it will not matter how hard you worked. You are caught in the system and there is nothing you can do. Can't compeat with wages 10% of what you make.

 

[Brat]

I am a long term observer of evaluation and selection processes. From a statistical standpoint evaluations have little/no impact on pay. Exceptions: sustained superior and sustained stinkers who receive top/no increases several years running.

Evaluations do impact movement (promotions), however, if the selecting official uses them. Often the internal grapevine knows managers who give weak evaluations to good performers to 'lock them in'.

 

[Eagle43]

I think evaluations can not specifically help you.  Everybody within reason gets a good evaluation.  OTOH:  Evaluations can definitely hurt your raise or promotion.  A bad one, and usually, you're done. The military had a problem, a few years ago, with what they termed "creeping inflation" on performance reports. My entire career, both military and corporate, I was rated "outstanding."  Even I don't believe that, but I had to be because everyone else was.  Mega-Corp eventually mandated that only a small percentage could be "superior performers".  Of course, of the number of superior performers, it was also mandated that diversity quotas had to be met.  This called into question the validity of the entire process.  After all, quotas are quotas.  I do miss all of this.... NOT!

 

[Brat]

... Mega-Corp eventually mandated that only a small percentage could be "superior performers".  ...  This called into question the validity of the entire process.  After all, quotas are quotas.  I do miss all of this.... NOT!

Regression to the mean.

I think they have value for managers who cannot discuss performance issues with problem performers, beyond that it is a frustrating exercise for both employees and managers.

 

[Spanky]

We have three ratings at our company: NI (need improvement), Valued, Outstanding. Over 90% of the people get the rating of "valued." if you do a good or excellent job. If you do an excellent job and take on additional responsibilities in another area outside your job (possibly in another department or group), you may receive an oustanding rating subject to availability.

I have never received an outstanding rating even though they told me that I have done an excellent job and expanded my role. I am not surprised at all since the only way to receive an outstanding rating or a promotion is form an alliance with your boss, the boss's boss and coworkers.

 

[brewer12345]

We have three ratings at our company: NI (need improvement), Valued, Outstanding. Over 90% of the people get the rating of "valued." if you do a good or excellent job. If you do an excellent job and take on additional responsibilities in another area outside your job (possibly in another department or group), you may receive an oustanding rating subject to availability.

I have never received an outstanding rating even though they told me that I have done  an excellent job and expanded my role. I am not surprised at all since the only way to receive an outstanding rating or a promotion is form an alliance with your boss, the boss's boss and coworkers.

Screw that. Not worth the effort. When I have been in that kind of organization, I have generally been forced to job hop in order to get appropriate market valuation. That being the case, it is doubly not worth the effort.

 

[cube_rat]

We have three ratings at our company: NI (need improvement), Valued, Outstanding. Over 90% of the people get the rating of "valued." if you do a good or excellent job. If you do an excellent job and take on additional responsibilities in another area outside your job (possibly in another department or group), you may receive an oustanding rating subject to availability.

I have never received an outstanding rating even though they told me that I have done  an excellent job and expanded my role. I am not surprised at all since the only way to receive an outstanding rating or a promotion is form an alliance with your boss, the boss's boss and coworkers.

Yeah, we have something like this here at work.  Everyone is subject to the bell curve and if you're on the cusp of "above target", you're forced ranked into the "on target" category. 

I gotta change my avatar, Ms. Chesty is beginning to annoy me...

 

[brewer12345]

I gotta change my avatar, Ms. Chesty is beginning to annoy me...

If you fancy dreadlocks, I'm willing to share...

 

[cube_rat]

If you fancy dreadlocks, I'm willing to share...

Although your avatar is very cool, I'm afraid I wouldn't look good in dreadlocks

 

[SteveR]

Yeah, we have something like this here at work.  Everyone is subject to the bell curve and if you're on the cusp of "above target", you're forced ranked into the "on target" category. 

If they really used a bell shaped curve, you would have more like 70% of your people fall into the acceptable category while 15% would be outstanding and another 15% would be marginal. The curve is not normal (pun intended) because management does not want to admit they retain 15% of their workforce that they consider marginal. Also, they don't want to pay (reward) the other 15% at the top either. So, they constrain the system to have only 5% of the whole working population that could be considered as outstanding while the middle group expands to more like 90% leaving a very small "needs improvement" group at the bottom. Here you either must demonstrate you can walk on water in a consistent manner while juggling multiply priorities while having your head up your bosses @ss all at the same time.

The extra 1-2% increase is not worth it to me so I do as little as I can get away with and still fall into the middle of the herd and get my cost of living adjustment merit increase every year.

 

[REWahoo]

Yeah, we have something like this here at work. Everyone is subject to the bell curve and if you're on the cusp of "above target", you're forced ranked into the "on target" category.

I gotta change my avatar, Ms. Chesty is beginning to annoy me...

Point #1: Please don't change your avatar. It gives an entirely new meaning to "livin' large".

Point #2: Someone recently mentioned on this or another thread about the problem of inflated ratings on military performance evaluations. In the early post-Vietnam era of the mid 70's, the military decided to do something about controlling this problem. And at the same time, the new performance rating requirements would put pressure on those getting lower ratings to leave the military, thus help reduce the numbers of officers in the military, since less cannon fodder was needed after our "withdrawal" from Vietnam. It worked for me.

The system provided four levels of ratings, with a "1" being a walk-on-water type (what almost everyone got before the new system was implemented), and a "4" being a dead-from-the-neck-up type. Each officer was evaluated by his immediate superior, then the next level and finally at the Wing Commander. Each rating level had a quota (think funky shaped bell curve) that allowed a maximum of twenty-something percent "1's", forty-something percent "2's, and unlimited "3" or "4" ratings.

I was a junior officer "flying a desk" in a "career-broadening" assignment (another get-rid-of-them program the USAF came up with to encourage pilots to leave) when my first annual performance evaluation under the new system took place. My immediate superior gave me a "1" and gave a "3" to one of my fellow officers in the unit, who had a little problem with alcohol and sometimes was late for work...or didn't show up at all. My fellow officers and I had pulled multiple duty to fill in for his absence many times. The only reason this particular officer hadn't already been escorted out the front gate was his choice of drinking buddies. He spent his nights at the officer's club bar tossing down several cold ones with the Wing Commander. (Coincidentally, the WC eventually got in hot water and retired after getting caught having an affair with a female student at Officer Candidate School, which he commanded. And she wasn't even that good looking... )

You can probably see where this is going, but by the time my rating left the Wing Commander's office, he had downgraded my "1" to a "2" and upped his drinking buddy from a "3" to a "1". That was the icing on the cake for me and I put my papers in and resigned my commission after putting in just over 8 years.

As you can no doubt tell, it left a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[Spanky]

I feel quite safe now since I know that most of our military officers hold a "1" being a walk-on-water type. :

 

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

Guys, for all the negatives of being a contractor, I do not have the stress that I lived with as a staff employee.

I consider formal reviews to be intensely demeaning. I think that feedback must be immediate to be useful, but then, it is not about feedback, is it? In my cynical eyes, they are just trying to document reasons for dismissal in the future. These days, all I want to know is, are you going to keep me or not? If there is work to do, I will do it. If no work, goodbye.

For many years now, I have found that I am a better engineer than any of my supervisors...and far more marketable. It bouys my spirit to know that I make 50% more than the guy in charge and I don't have to put up with politics. Both of these things gall the hell out of staff. Sorry. I pay for that by not working regularly and by working far from home, but I will live longer.

Ed in the North

 

[Jarhead*]

I was a junior officer "flying a desk" in a "career-broadening" assignment (another get-rid-of-them program the USAF came up with to encourage pilots to leave)

ReWahoo: Interesting story.

Were you previously a pilot that was re-assigned to a desk job? If so, I can understand your angst.

My youngest cousin was a helicopter pilot during the Vietnam situation, and after we pulled out, and wrapped things up in the 70's, they re-assigned him in the same manner.
He had 14 years in the Army, and was a Warrent Officer. He was also a red-neck, and loved flying those "egg-beaters".

He sought my advice on what to do, as he was thinking about bailing out. I suggested he ride that desk until he had his 20 in, and then tell them to place it "where the moon don't shine."

He's a fly-fishing buddy of mine, now, and thankful he listened to my advice.

The fact that you "only" had 8 years invested, I would have probably did what you did, but I'm sure that was not an easy decision.

P.S. We are into our 5th. day in a row of rain,
(No golf), so thanks for getting me partially through another day with an interesting post.

Jarhead

 

[REWahoo]

Were you previously a pilot that was re-assigned to a desk job? If so, I can understand your angst.

Yes, but I had far less problem with the non-flying assignment than I did with the "we've got too many of you and we wish you would go the Hell away" mindset. I was the first of many of my flying buddies to leave and it was less than 18 months later that we were contacted asking if we would like to come back. It seems the "get rid of them" policy had been too successful and the result was a lack of experience in the cockpit and an increasing number of flying accidents.

I said no, but some of my friends accepted the offer and were paid a bonus to return. And in the inscrutable wisdom of our government, a couple of them were later given bonuses to leave again!

Like your cousin, I would have probably tried to stick it out to "get my 20" had I been where he was. But the thought of 12 more years was just more than I could hack. But it turned out OK.

Sorry about your lousy weather. Hope it improves before you or DW decide to take a few practice swings at each other.

 

[Nords]

The system provided four levels of ratings, with a "1" being a walk-on-water type (what almost everyone got before the new system was implemented), and a "4" being a dead-from-the-neck-up type. Each officer was evaluated by his immediate superior, then the next level and finally at the Wing Commander. Each rating level had a quota (think funky shaped bell curve) that allowed a maximum of twenty-something percent "1's", forty-something percent "2's, and unlimited "3" or "4" ratings.

I was the first of many of my flying buddies to leave and it was less than 18 months later that we were contacted asking if we would like to come back.   It seems the "get rid of them" policy had been too successful and the result was a lack of experience in the cockpit and an increasing number of flying accidents.

The more things change... you've just described the Navy of the mid-1990s.

Under the earlier FITREP system, everyone had a 4.00 GPA and you had to use a microscope to distinguish among the superlatives in the comments section. Querying the database to find an outstanding officer (to relieve the dirtball who'd just run aground) would spew out 1000 or more names (no doubt including more dirtballs).

The system changed to a 5.0 scale with specific attributes for integer grades between 1.0 - 5.0. 5.00 GPAs had to be accompanied by the CO's letter to the admiral justifying a 5.00 FITREP... a couple of those letters from the same CO would earn a "knock it off" phone call. The promotion-recommendation quota system started an impressive number of fistfights at ranking boards but it's well worth the effort. A command's FITREPS can be automatically checked for format & quotas and they're automatically kicked back if they don't conform to the rules. A few of those kickbacks earns the CO another special quality-control phone call.

As computing power grows, the CO's reporting average is now tracked by the Bureau of Personnel, and it's available to just about any officer/sailor. The quality of your FITREP grades now depends on whether you're above your CO's average or below it. The "easy" graders and the "hard" graders can now be compared to see where someone falls under each.

The Navy is still suffering from the "'95 notch", referring to the sparse number of officers commissioned that year. A few years back their promotion board to O-3 was cancelled ("all qualified" were promoted, basically all those without felony convictions) and a couple years ago there was considerable debate about canceling their O-4 board. However Congress wanted to approve the board's results (as usual) so they "only" promoted something like 97% of them. I think their chances of command are about triple what it is today...

Gosh I miss this stuff-- NOT.

 

[brewer12345]

Well, surprise, surprise, I just had my job evaluation/bonus "talk". I figured this would happen after the close of the year, but what do I know. Unlike my last eval in a corporate employer, this one consisted of me and the three partners sitting in an office talking about what I did well and (mostly) where I could improve. They were candid and didn't waste time with forms to be filled out, idiotic number grades, etc. I thought all of their suggestions were pretty well on the mark. I'm actually glad that they came up with the same things I did because it means that I will get help getting where I need to be. Overall, though, they were fairly positive (otherwise I'd be out the door).

The bonus was less than I had hoped, but within the range of my expectations considering the modest return we generated this year. About 50% of my base comp and enough to fund some home improvements, a nice vacation and still have a decent chunk to put away. The door is also wide open for next year, and I have a very good idea of where to invest my efforts.

I know this sort of thing is impossible in a larger company (people would get sued), but it was immeasurably more productive than anything I've ever had in a large company.

 

[SteveR]

Brewer,
Congratulations on the bonus. Private practice sure has a number of benefits over megacorp. Our bonus for the year will be maybe 12% of base.

Glad things are falling into place for you.

 

[KB]

It sounds like the change of job was the right move.

Congrats on the bonus.

 

[brewer12345]

It sounds like the change of job was the right move.

Congrats on the bonus. 

Thanks. I think it is turning out to be a good move, but time will tell. I suspect that the limiting factor will be my wife' willingness to see me away for so many hours a day. But so far, so good.

 

[HFWR]

I'll be getting a large "bone-us"...