Where, oh where has my little review gone? 2

[Rhea737]

If I were a manager, I would do the employee reviews on time.

My company is not going to give anyone much of a raise this year. If any of us get about 2%, it will be a miracle. So there really isn't any money matters holding up the feedback process.

But where is the sense of just letting the reviews continually be later and later each year? Our reviews are supposed to be "annual reviews". Last year's review was done at 15 months. The year before that, the review was done at 13 months.

 

[sha76]

Been here 22 months, not yet had an annual review!

 

[Rhea737]

I can't understand why the manager doesn't do the reviews.

It's not like it is a complicated technical project or anything.

If I just blatantly refused to do parts of my job, I would definitely be held accountable.

 

[BJCooperIT]

I worked for a company where reviews were notoriously late (sometimes as late as 18 months). Everyone was vastly overworked and managers claimed there simply was no time to do reviews. The new CEO instituted a policy: if a manager gave a review late then the manager's paycheck was withheld until the review was completed. Funny, all reviews were suddenly done a week or two in advance from then on!


[sup]Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.[/sup][sup] ~George Bernard Shaw[/sup]
Consultant/Custom Forms & PL/SQL - Oracle 8.1.7 - Windows 2000

 

[lespaul]

amazing what a little motivation can do for someone's attitude!!

Leslie

 

[bi]

BJCooper, that CEO must have been a really good manager!

How about the reviews where you have to review yourself? And sometimes the manager just rubberstamps it -- which is good for your wallet if you know beforehand so you can give yourself high marks. But it doesn't do you any good on improving yourself or your performance.

 

[Tarwn]

Heh, if my company did that I would have a very difficult time filling out the review...Probably ramble off about the time aliens invaded and stole my ice cream or something similarly off topic...

[sub]01000111 01101111 01110100 00100000 01000011 01101111 01100110 01100110 01100101 01100101 00111111[/sub]
The never-completed website:

http://www.tiernok.com/

 

[MasterRacker]

In my last place, a review consisted of me writing and numerically grading myself in about a dozen areas, then my supervisor responding in all areas, then a good half-hour to hour sitdown. Reviews of supervisors were longer. They basically got done though, because one of the things supervisors were graded on was the timeliness of the reviews they were responsible for. Reviews were not a quick or easy process though.


Jeff
The future is already here - it's just not widely distributed yet...

 

[Bodgit]

2.5 years never had a review I think they're scared of asking what we think and getting an answer they don't like

 

[CajunCenturion]

No Bodgit, they're not scared of asking you what you think for fear of getting an answer they don't like. They're just putting off telling you what you don't to hear.

Plain and simple, reviews are a pain in the butt for all parties concerned.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[SemperFiDownUnda]

At my last full time job you had to review yourself and your manager. Your manager then reviewed you and you got together to talk about the whole issue.

I think the biggest problem with reviews is bad communications all the time. An organisation with good communication between management and workers reviews are fairly painless. I mean its not hard to go into a review and tell someone they are crap if you've been telling them that for the last 6 months because of their actions.

Actually let me put it in a better way. If you have good communication the review actually is done when it comes time you just rubber stamp it. You don't have to sit there and think forgetting somethings. If you have the situation where there is a surprise in a review then something has gone wrong unless they just showed something you did that caused a huge change in the status quo like a multi-million dollar contract was won or loss because of your effort or lack their of.....the times that has happened are pretty remote so we'll ignore that.

Oh the communication has to be open and honest too.

 

[SpiderBear6]

I wouldn't say reviews are a "pain in the butt", Cajun. A good review can be very useful. At the company where I work, we have performance/pay reviews every 12 months. The review includes things like where do you see yourself in 5 years times type stuff (ie, career path), training plans, aspects which affect your work and also determining your pay increase. A review is only as good as what both parties bring to it. They are good for employers because they can see how the employee is going, if there is anything affecting their work performance etc and they are good for the employees because they can be used to keep their career path on track and to also voice any concerns they may have. I used to think they were a pain in the butt but then I realised that I wasn't getting anything out of them because I wasn't putting anything in.

My 2 cents worth.

Cheers all

--------------------------------------
"We are star-stuff. We are the universe made manifest trying to figure itself out."
-- Delenn in Babylon 5 - "A Distant Star"

 

[DrJavaJoe]

Personally I could care less about reviews. I have always felt like I had a pretty good grasp of where I stood. Sort of like SemperFiDownUnda stated, if there is good comunication year round then the the review is just a rubber stamp. Now when it comes to increases that's a different story, review or not I ask for a raise. I've always gone above and beyond when it comes to work and I'm not shy about asking for more money and the good communication simplifiies that even more.

 

[SpiderBear6]

I guess in my case, communication is not that easy as I work for a company that contracts me out to other companies. So really the review is the only time I communicate with my employer. But if you actually work with your employer, I guess you would have more frequent communication. At least if you have a formal review, then it can be documented. It can be interesting to go back through previous reviews to see how you progress.

--------------------------------------
"We are star-stuff. We are the universe made manifest trying to figure itself out."
-- Delenn in Babylon 5 - "A Distant Star"

 

[AnanthaP]

SpiderBear6. A few questions.

First my position.
My company contracts persons out to other companies (these are whole time assignments not less than six months) and I get to review the contractors' performance to fix their reward and raise and also to negotiate better back2back contracts with the client companies.

Q1.
Would you prefer a joint review with the client and the reviewer (in your company)?

Q2.
Would you prefer some structured mid year review?

Q3.
How would you like your reviewer to be kept aware of your contribution?

Any thoughts on what are the pain areas?

End

 

[SQLSister]

I've worked in many places where you never got a review (no matter what the "official" policy was) unless you asked for one. This is done purely for the economic reason of if I don't review them they don't get a pay raise. If you want a review or a pay raise, ask for it and keep asking until you get it.

 

[BJCooperIT]

AnanthaP,
As a contractor I can offer my opinion. I would appreciate a team review 2-3 months into an assignment. In an informal setting meet as a group and discuss how everyone is contributing, where strengths and weaknesses are and then adjust as necessary. At the end of each 6 months I would like a personal review. I would hate to wrap up a project and be told after the fact that I made mistakes that I could not correct.


[sup]Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.[/sup][sup] ~George Bernard Shaw[/sup]
Consultant/Custom Forms & PL/SQL - Oracle 8.1.7 - Windows 2000

 

[SpiderBear6]

To your questions AnanthaP

A1. Not really... usually what happens is my employerhas a chat with the company that I am contracted to (without me) to discuss any issues. Then my employer and myself have my review.

A2. While I think reviews are good, too many can be annoying. We have ours yearly (usually on your employment start date anniversary). We also have a "debreifing" type session at the end of a contract with a company (a contract can last for years)

A3. "How would you like your reviewer to be kept aware of your contribution?" Not entirely sure what you are asking here.. but I am assuming that you mean contributions I make to the company I am contracted out to. I guess the reviewer is made aware of the contributions by talking to the contract company and by what I tell him in the review.

We are supposed to do a self appraisal before we go to the review and then at the review the reviewer and the reviewee discuss the appraisal. This is supposed to happen but more often then not doesn't.

Hope that helps.



--------------------------------------
"We are star-stuff. We are the universe made manifest trying to figure itself out."
-- Delenn in Babylon 5 - "A Distant Star"

 

[svanels]

What is the purpose of a review?

employee: chance to get a raise.

employer: chance to tell somebody he doesn't deserve a raise.

Unless there is no uniformity (no rules) to conduct a review it will be worthless. (HRM policies)

In our company the review consist of two parts. In the middle of the year a performance evaluation. This works both ways, strong and weak points of both (worker x boss) are discussed and actions for improvement are documented.

End of the year boss fills in the score card.

If worker A scores only maximum points (must be justified, too high or too low) and Worker B only scores regular (but sleeps with the boss/supervisor/manager etc.) who will be promoted to substitute the boss?

Worker A is probably known by more people outside the boss/supervisor kingdom.

The argument: He/she is always correct, is always on time etc.. is not valid, people are paid to do that.

It also started working only after cutting the labor incentives of boss and workers.
supervisor doesn't deliver/hold the reviews in time...Division Manager doesn't get Bonus neither the supervisor or workers.

Everybody scores high, but wastes, accidents, absenteism also are high, then it is time for management to kick some butts, because something is wrong.

Steven van Els
SAvanEls@cq-link.sr

 

[CajunCenturion]

IMHO, there are several problems with any scheduled review system, not the least of which is that it is scheduled. Professionalism and/or quality of work (or lack thereof) is not an annual affair, it is a day in and day committment. Why wait a year to tell something that they're doing a great job? or that they need improvement in certain areas?

As an analogy, have you ever noticed the subtle differences in TV programming during ratings week?

A good manager will identify and discuss problem areas as soon as they are identified. If a problem is identified is January and corrected by February, what is the point of rehashing that at the annual review in November or December? Nor should you wait until then to document and/or praise the improvement. If in March, the problem has still not been rectified, why wait until the annual review to again address the issue. This should be an on-going process, not relegated to an annual event.

Most employers don't want to keep the negatives on file for a couple of reasons. First, once the behavior has been corrected, it's history and you move on. Rarely does it serve anyone's best interests to keep these black marks in the file. I'm not talking about major screw-ups that need to be documented, but rather, the day to day improvement areas and/or behaviors that we all suffer from that we can work on. Secondly, there is always the litigation issue and there is always subjective judgments involved and it comes down to a he said/she said condundrum. At the end of the day, it's a no-win situation.

One area that many like to engage in as part of the annual review is the "goals for next year." There is some validity to that, but if these goal are not consistent with the business requirements and obligations, then the company is not in a position to help you reach your goal. Now, here comes next year's review and well, you didn't reach your goal. It's not your fault that the company did not get a project that allowed you to work on your goal, but now you have a documented failure to reach goal in the annual review. Unfortunately, the reason why the goal wasn't met doesn't mitigate the fact that the goes wasn't met.

Annual performance review are wonderful on paper (just ask any MBA), but in practice, they are so fraught with ambiguity, misunderstanding, subjective interpretation, and whitewash, that they fail to serve their intended purpose.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein