Interesting mix of responses here. What I did not see was the fact that reviews are, in theory, meant to facilitate employee growth. Whether this is financial in nature, potential change of careers, lateral moves, promotions or dismissals is really up to the individuals participating in the reviews.
I am the director of an IT department - the first job in the proverbial Big Chair that I've had. As a manager-type, I recall being one of the ones having to do self-evaluations, solicit feedback from my peers, blah, blah, blah.
What has always stayed with me is the fact that a truly productive review is best viewed as an ongoing process. An employee should *never* be surprised in a review, regardless of whether the results are positive or negative.
A manager is simply there to facilitate their reports being able to do their jobs most effectively. A good manager ensures their folks have the tools, training and time necessary to accomplish their objectives. A good manager will enable the professional staff to manage themselves as much as possible, and serve to provide course corrections, clear paths and provide feedback on performance on an ongoing basis.
By maintaining the review process in the same manner in which other aspects of a management job is maintained -- budgets are a good example -- then the time the 'official' review process should only become a matter of all parties documenting already known and communicated quantities and qualities.
And when it comes time for that moment of truth, whatever you may define this as, both parties should sit at the table knowing very well what the other one will say and expect to hear. If there are any surprises, even good ones, in the managers’ feedback to the employee, then the manager has not done their job of reinforcing
Managers who ignore their employees are guilty of negligence. They are not managers, but more like well-paid paper-shufflers. A true manager is someone who is in constant communication with their staff, and has developed an open and candid relationship so that conversations of a review-type nature are both ongoing and constructive.
Staff people here who have stated that they know where they stand are likely working for a manager who does provide ongoing feedback in whatever form they company allows.
For myself, I enjoy the sweet words "Pay to the Order Of...."
It is also interesting to note that the workforce today has potentially 2 or 3 generations in the same department. Each generation, from the silents to the x-ers, respond to different stimuli. The X-ers tend to want more freedom than boomers or silents. The silents tend to want more feedback in the form of "we value your experience", while the boomers want to feel more like they are contributing to the greater good of things. While these broad strokes may not apply to every individual, it may be one of the many explanations that indicate why certain individuals put more credence in reviews than others.
~wmichael
"small change can often be found under seat cushions"
