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.

 

[Onyxpurr]

Everyone is different.

Not to be stereotypical, but my generation (X) typically favors more freedom over our work but also more 1:1s (one on ones). I think my last company did this really well. I had 1:1s monthly, it could be semi-annually depending on manager discretion. We met and dicussed my accomplishments and things I needed support from him with. Usually the meeting would only be a few minutes if we had kept in communication throughout the month. But every once in awhile, we'd both be so busy, I was thankful for the monthly review.

For the annual review, which had nothing to do with compensation (wink, wink) I could just pull all the monthly for information. It worked out great!!

However some people do not require or want reviews that happen that often.

Me, personally, I've been blindsided in the past by a manager that didn't have 1:1s and apparently didn't like my work. I asked him all the time, "How am I doing?", but he only gave me generic "You're doing great!" until one day when his co-manager pulled me aside and said, "Manager A wanted to sit you down and discuss this, but I said it would be better coming from me." There was a whole list on the whiteboard of stuff I was doing wrong.

Ever since then I've been kinda nervous and paranoid about my performance (although he was the only manager that ever gave me a less than perfect review), so I like my reviews and 1:1s.

Oops, gotta run, got my weekly 1:1.

 

[Kjonnnn]

Where I use to work (and I wasnt a computer guy), I would review myself, my boss would review myself, and 3 people I've worked with have input on my review.

 

[SQLSister]

CAjun, I agree with you about reviews but most places they are the only way to get a pay raise (Unless you choose to sleep with management which I do not choose to do!).

I have found the worst are the places where everyone is reviewed at the same time. Makes it much easier to make the process have arbitrary limits like only 20% can get a performance bonus. This caused much hate and discontent when I worked for the government. Every year, people who were doing outstanding work would get theor reviews changed by senior management to keep the numbers down. And every year someone would get a big bonus that no one else thought he or she deserved. Alwys caused hate and discontent and lost productivity for a t least a month. This is one of the reasons why Deming was against the idea of performance reviews.

 

[CajunCenturion]

You government example illustrates my point (at least I think it does). The performance review is not performance review. It's a manipulation tool, and is counter-productive. Good managers realize this, and as such, usually are against them and in the interests of production, try to avoid them.

And I am glad that you choose professionalism over expediency.

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

 

[SQLSister]

"And I am glad that you choose professionalism over expediency."

Me too! Believe me. No amount of money is worth doing some things.

 

[Onyxpurr]

"The performance review is not performance review. It's a manipulation tool, and is counter-productive."

Well like anything, I think it depends.

If you have a good manager a performance eval can be helpful. My current boss usualy uses this time to review with me areas of improvement (without making me feel reprimanded) and give me appreciation for the things I've done right over the past year.

However a performance review can be devestating with a bad manager. It can interrupt production and even make a good employee unmotivated.

I've experienced both.

 

[rosieb]

CajunCenturion
Annual performance reviews are wonderful on paper (just ask any MBA)
A trivial point, but, they don’t issue us with horns and a tail on graduation. (Some MBAs have actually managed people before studying the theory and can even understand that the theory requires application to specific environments.)

Though I take your point, many MBAs are appalling managers – learning the theory doesn’t make you a competent practitioner (as often been said before), despite what the many of the business schools claim.

[One of the main reasons I took an MBA was because I was so ticked off with being told that, as a techie/data person, I couldn’t possibly understand the “business model”.]




Performance reviews should serve an obvious purpose. Reward, development plans, etc.

If the only purpose is to fulfil some HR goal such as “all employees will receive an annual review”, I agree, they are a waste of everyone’s time and should be treated accordingly by all concerned.

Any halfway competent manager should deal with problems (both upward and downward) and, more importantly, successes as they arise (as has been said above).

In terms of performance, the review should simply summarise what is already clear, no surprises. It should then move on to the important bit; development, training, or pay, as appropriate to the organisation’s stated purpose of reviews.

[In one review, I simply said that I did not see myself in the same position for any more than a year longer, as there were no real challenges because of the way the job was currently structured – no threat, just a statement of fact. Three months later, I was offered a post in a new venture they were setting up.]

A review needs a stated purpose, or it’s a complete waste of everyone’s time.

Rosie

 

[CajunCenturion]

Point taken rosieb, and certainly no offense intended.

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

 

[Onyxpurr]

[In one review, I simply said that I did not see myself in the same position for any more than a year longer, as there were no real challenges because of the way the job was currently structured – no threat, just a statement of fact. Three months later, I was offered a post in a new venture they were setting up.]]

Wow! What a great peice of advice. My boss does this as well in perf review. We talk about options for training, education, and career advancement. Not to mention company politics.

 

[wmichael]

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"

 

[svanels]

"We talk about options for training, education, and career advancement. Not to mention company politics".

That is the purpose of a performance review, to create a win-win situation for both parties, company x employee. The employee feels that his input has value and this will motivate to come with suggestions and improvements.

Errors, miscommunication, problems are on-going things and are part of day to day bussiness.

If you were a manager you would wait for an annual review to correct structural problems? Surely your boss won't wait for an annual review to scrub you.

Steven van Els
SAvanEls@cq-link.sr

 

[zeitghost]

Haven't had a review since 1996.

The bottom has dropped out of the contractor market, so I'll probly be having one if I eventually get a job as a permie again.

rgds
Zeit.