Annual performance review time

[Tradd]

It's that time of the year again - annual reviews. Mine is Thursday. This "rate yourself" thing seems to be somewhat new. I don't really remember it from years ago.

My manager told us to rate ourselves "conservatively" - "achieved" isn't a bad thing, she said. Hah! I went above and beyond. Yes, it took me two tries to pass the brokers exam, but given that only 12 people in the entire country passed April's, they can't exactly say I was a flop...

Trying to come up with goals for this year. Aside from getting my license, which is just a matter of time, I'm not totally sure. I did the big one last year! :D

[redfox]

Good reviews are 5-10% what's happened, and 90-95% what's next, IMHO!

[Tammy]

My department overall struggles with one concept .... If a person is rated above average, we need examples of that. Doing exactly what is on a job description is average. Doing more is above. People don't understand that. They think doing exactly what they are hired to do makes them above average.

[SteveinMN]

If a person is rated above average, we need examples of that. Doing exactly what is on a job description is average. Doing more is above. People don't understand that. They think doing exactly what they are hired to do makes them above average.
One of the "issues" I had with my old workplace was (is?) excessive vagueness in job descriptions and interpretations of duties. In the course of one year, we changed our primary software tool (think of switching from being a skilled Chinese chef to being forced to become a skilled French chef), changed the primary product we worked on (like speaking English in the kitchen and moving to Spanish), and ramped up the number of projects we did in the year. To my mind, being able to negotiate all of that successfully is a more-than-average effort which should be recognized as such. But, to management, it was "business as usual". Way to motivate people... Certainly no one's job stays the same from year to year. Change is inevitable (as it should be; if there's no change, eventually there's no job). But orchestrating fundamental changes like that and moving faster to boot? Not "average".

[Tradd]

My department overall struggles with one concept .... If a person is rated above average, we need examples of that. Doing exactly what is on a job description is average. Doing more is above. People don't understand that. They think doing exactly what they are hired to do makes them above average.

I've most definitely gone above and beyond. Giving IT support in the dept. and training people in our office and other US offices on our industry specific software is totally outside my job description. They just happened to discover I'm technically inclined...

[bUU]

I do think that a lot of companies have pursued and promulgated review and rewards systems that come back to bite them, in some ways, and perhaps more generally the general practice has come back to bite the nation as a whole, in some ways. There is this almost maniacal pursuit of the "above average" rating to perhaps justify a merit increase, as if merit is a reflection of how your work compares to that of others, rather than to what you're expected to do. I think companies resisted the idea that could lead to a situation where 90% of the people could actually perform meritorious service warranting compensation increase greater than just COL. I cannot tell you how often during my careers I've seen the bottom-line compromised due to energy wasted on competing one against another instead of working together in a meritorious manner, or due to efforts to game the system.

I've read the equivocations above, seemingly implying that doing the job, itself, isn't meritorious. Bull. There is merit in doing the job, or at least there should be. Going above and beyond is, or at least should be, considered - well - over and above just plain merit. It may not be above average. It may not warrant remarkable increases in compensation, but I think it is very damaging to have a system that essentially devalues doing the job - such that doing the job itself, but not distinguishing yourself in an unexpected manner, disqualifies you for any compensation increases above COL, and in at least a few cases, earns you a path to dismissal. I think that is a combination of two wrong-headed perspectives: focus on profits over people, and the mythos of Lake Wobegon, where everyone is (expected to be) above average.

Now to be fair, what has been going on probably has been good for business, and probably good for the economy, but bad for society, community, family and all the other aspects impetus to pursue financial independence not solely in the interest of financial security but just as defense mechanism against a system that seems hell-bent on harming people rather than helping society. And the harm I'm talking about is harm not only to those less fortunate, but just look at the harm the system inflicts on many of those most successful. How can wealth so often be such an empty victory? At worst, it should be a wash, but very often the pursuit of wealth causes palpable damage to qualitative aspects of the life of those who do well. That's just wrong imho.

[Float On]

I've never liked the 'score yourself' & 'score your co-workers' thing.

[bUU]

Love the "score your supervisor" thing, though. ;)

[redfox]

The 360 eval. A much more collaborative, less right/wrong, good/bad process.

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/360-Degrees-of-Evaluation-More-companies-2842513.php

[Kestra]

Ugh, have to do mine soon, too. I hate the self-evaluate. And we're supposed to provide examples, as well as a rating out of 5, in a billion areas. The first time at this company, I did it I gave myself some 4s out of 5, as I generally consider myself to be an above average performer. My boss gave me all 3s - meets expectations, and said I'd rated myself too highly, for what the company generally does. On the second review with that boss, she gave me 4 out of 5 on efficiency AND accuracy, and said she'd never given someone a 4 in both areas - so there! I'd also saved the company thousands of dollars by finding a mistake that several more senior people than me had missed.

Luckily now we have a new review system software program, where you can actually just select comments from a list, for the example section. Makes it so much easier.

[Tradd]

I rocked mine today. :)

[treehugger]

The 360 eval. A much more collaborative, less right/wrong, good/bad process.

That's what we do at my company, and I think it works very well. Reviews can be great tools for management *and* employees (for career development purposes), if handled well. They can all be a dismal experience. Thankfully, I where I work, it's in the former category. But I've seen the other side, too.

Kara