annual reviews = load of crap 1

[boffintech]

Annual reviews are coming up pretty soon at my company. My manager uses a form supplied by corporate. The form has a lot of categories which are graded on a scale of 1 to 4 points. Last year during the review my manager told me that he “never gives a 4”. The highest score of 4 means the person being graded exceeds the expected performance for that particular category. This guy won’t give fractions of points either so a 3 is the best one can do. There are lots of categories that I think I should be given a 5 in but I can only get a 3 out of this guy.

He claims that “no one is perfect” and thus no 4s. To this I say why try to be perfect because you won’t reward it if I hit it. We are at a standoff on this. How can I get him to see the error of his ways?

 

[MadMango]

About the only approach you have is to gather your previous performance evaluations, but before you show them to your boss, ask if he/she believes you have grown in the position you are in. If the answer is yes, then show him the evaluations and point out that you are constantly getting 3’s, and that it would be nice to see a few 4’s to reflect your growth in your current position.

[green]"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."[/green]
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.
Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[mpparent]

We have a similar metric. However, the "4" in my case would not be "perfect", but would be that you went the extra mile in your job. Maybe you could go to HR. I mean, if no one can get a "4", then why have it?

Mike

 

[MintJulep]

As long as he is consistent, and it is known that he never gives 4s you should be happy that you are getting 3s. You are getting the highest mark possible from your manager.

 

[Nella95]

Now, I'm not saying I'm buying into this: but your conspiracy-theory-types are gonna say, that no 4s = less possibility of a raise. And, you can take it one step further, if nobody gets 4s even when they're 'perfect' then why be 'perfect.' -not necessarily the best way to think.

 

[boffintech]

mpparent, exactly, why have it if you can't get it?

MintJulep, the problem is that other dept managers dole out the 4s like candy in a candy shop. Inconsistency is true even within our own dept. One of two guys can do a review and neither uses the same system.

 

[DaveVikingPE]

Here's a hypothetical situation:

Let's say you're supposed to write up your previous years' contributions. Write 'em up - honestly - and make sure you highlight your successes and that you had no failures, right? Then, since a "4" means you exceeded the expected performance, does last years' record really indicate that? If it does and you strongly believe it, call your supervisor on it. Then, tell him that the other managers do, in fact, "...dole out the 4s like candy in a candy shop...". His response to you will most likely be pretty darn nasty - expect him to come off as threatened, cornered; he will attack you like a caged bobcat.

Also, make sure you have that other job in the bag before you do this...

This is a good book to read: How to Work for a Jerk, by Robert M. Hochheiser.

 

[RDK]

What are these reviews used for?

If they only are done to meet some sort of HR goal that everyone has a review done once a year and then they are filed away and never looked at again then don’t worry about it. A “4” there is like a star here or pissing yourself in a dark suit. You get a nice warm feeling but no one notices.

If these are actually used for promotions, pay raises or advancement then document your expectations and goals and document everything that you do that meets or exceeds your previously established goals and be ready to fight for every additional score that you can get.

Don’t skimp on the documentation; write down every assignment deadline and goal no matter how trivial. Write down when it was completed and turned in and when you received any comments about it as well as what were those comments. Do it at the time, the next day is too late, I like to use a lab book with bound pages for this sort of diary, that way you can never lose a page or be accused of removing one or inserting one after the fact

Most annual reviews are unfortunately in the former category. The HR people established a program but really don’t care what happens as a result of it, only that they got their 4’s for having everyone rated each year.

IMHO annual reviews are usually a waste of time. Most people who have ever worked for me have known exactly where they stood in terms of having benchmarks and how they rated against them. They received some sort of verbal feedback daily or weekly at least. Much more immediate and effective than waiting a year to know where you stand.

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[boffintech]

What are these reviews used for? They are used primarily for the determination of annual raises. But I tend to believe that the amounts of the raises are predetermined and that the reviews are just procedural. The hard workers are going to get a little more of a percent than the slackers and that's about all there is to it.

 

[ctopher]

My last employer did this. Scale 1-5, 5 being impossible. We had to rate ourselves, at the same time our boss was rating us, then turn it in. Then we sat with the boss to compare numbers. Which was a waist of time, because his numbers were cast in stone. So, everyone always put 5's knowing, no matter what, it was laways wrong! I don't like the system. A good boss knows how good you are and how to rate you without it.

Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks/PDMWorks 05
AutoCAD 05
ctopher's home site (updated 06-21-05)
FAQ559-1100
FAQ559-716

 

[Comcokid]

Tell your boss that if nobody is perfect and nobody can ever rate better than a 3, then even he is a 3 or less!. Then go and find a boss who does rank as a 5.

 

[boffintech]

I wonder if his boss gives him a 4 on his review if he says whoa, make that a 3 because I don't believe in 4s. I bet not.

 

[rhodie]

Kindly suggest to him that he change the upper control limit of his expectations to be infinitive, since you cannot exceed them.

Then suggest to him (even more kindly) that if something cannot be measured, it cannot be improved.

If your performance cannot be progressively measured, then the point of him giving a review is pointless, because there is no metric to measure improvement.

You wrote that a 4 warrants exceeding expected performance. If indeed it is impossible to exceed his expectations to any degree, then his expectations are not rooted in objective metrics but rather dynamic subjectivity.

Which makes using a numerical system of evaluation rather stupid and trite. Just tell your Boss to quit posing as systematic and just blather his opinions openly without trying to justify them as imperical.

 

[quark]

Annual reviews are generally followed by a calibration process to level the overdoings of managers. Just check if your company adopts such systems.

Is your boss interested in getting 4s? If not, this is right time for you to speak to his boss

 

[MedicineEng]

Let me give you my oppinion, since I am in both sides; I do make annual reviews to my staff and received it from the general manager.

First, it is tough, real tough to judge someone. It's tought for several reasons:
1-You cannot be completely impartial, no matter what. There are persons that you personally like most, others that you like less, others have families, others don't, so the array of side issues that influence your judgement is so big that you can only hope to be as much impartial as possible.
I say this straight away to my staff. This appraisal will not be 100% impartial;
2-You are judging one year's work and if you don't take notes along the time it will be impossible that you can remember all and thus you will concentrate in the last few months. This is practically impossible if you have to evaluate a significative ammount of staff;

What do we do?
First I set the objectives for the department and projects for the following year.
We set objectives in the beginning of the period. These objectives are usually not proposed by me, but by my middle managers individually and taking into consideration the departmental objectives. There is a revision in 6 months time and in the end the objectives will be graded from 0-100%.
We also take the opportunity to speak with them about what can they expect for the following year in terms of work and carreer. I believe that it goes well and it is better than the usual grading list of "productivity", "availability", "quality of work", etc. This type of list we only give to the staff in the workshop.
This wil have influence both in the raises and bonus.

 

[IRstuff]

The system is fine; there are simply lots of jerk bosses. Part of the problem, of course, is that most engineering bosses are trained as engineers and get zero training to be a boss. Now, if someone wants votes to require certification and licensure of "bosses," I'll certainly vote in the affirmative.

However, there's generally very little you can do if your boss is that way. You can try some top-down intervention, but that, obviously, may blow up in your face.

Our rating system is similar 5-->consistently exceeds expectations, 4-->often exceeds expectations, etc. My bosses have generally been pretty good at grading fairly. But, as in school, there's always one guy who is just not into giving fair grades.

TTFN

 

[HgTX]

It's a bad system if there's no indication of what the numbers mean. Typical scales, even if there are numbers attached to them, are something like "poor, fair, needs improvement, meets expectations, exceeds expectations, outstanding". If they just say "rank 'em", that gives boffintech's boss to interpret the top of the scale as "perfect" when everyone else apparently takes it to mean "does a very good job".

Might not be a bad idea to ask HR if there is any written (or even unwritten) guidance as to what those numbers are supposed to mean. And suggest that perhaps a generally circulated memo is in order.

Also it's not a bad idea to set up criteria at the beginning of the year for what criteria need to be met to get the various rankings.

We have a 5-point system: poor, fair, meets expectations, exceeds, outstanding (or something like that). My boss doesn't give out oustandings. He's never stated this outright, but I don't know of him ever giving any out, and I've seen several evaluations he's done, since I'm in a lead worker role. (And besides, I honestly believe that if he gave 'em, I'd get 'em.)

This doesn't bother me, because although HR changed to the 5-point scale from a simple doesn't meet/meets/exceeds system, they have implemented nothing in the merit system to differentiate between the bottom two or top two places in the scale. So "outstanding" has the same administrative effect as "exceeds".

However, at least one of his evaluees is all pissed off because he was expecting to get some outstandings and didn't get 'em. Now the evaluee feels cheated.

Inconsistency in application of standards isn't just a matter of whether or not it figures into the raise formula. It also generates ill will--witness both my colleague and boffintech.

I'm not a huge fan of the annual evaluation.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[jmw]

It doesn't matter what the system of scoring is or how it is applied by different managers.

I think you've missed the point of this excercise because you are focussed on points scoring and how the points system works. Fine if all you want are points but prepare to be dissappointed because i don't think you'll find that anyone else has the same concern with the points. They might care more about the whole review process means and what it tells them about you and your work.

So you need to ask (yourself, or your boss...)what this excercise is about and if it is a genuine procedure or one of those HR broken clock winding excercises.

If it is functional and works, your obsession with the points scoring mechanism is going to work against you. Before you run off to HR or start a rebellion, just ask how long this has been in place and how long the different bosses have run the systems their way?
IF no one has changed it, it either means it is a nothing, a futile excercise or it means it ain't broke and indeed, your concern about the points system may be revealing more about you than you think. Don't be surprised if you start to drop down the points ladder for no apparent reason.

So forget the points and ask yourself about some real benefits:
What do you get out of this?
What does your boss get out of this?
What does the company get out of it?

Are you being victimised? Is your career on track? Are you working well and does your boss know it and do you know that your boss knows it?

Get to grip with and address the real issues.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[livingston]

On the flip side of this discussion is my company. We never get reviews! Everybody gets the same raise every year regardless of the work you have or have not put in. A lot of the people who have been here a while have told me that if they get the same raise as the slackers, why bother to do more than the slackers. Imagine this work environment.

 

[epoisses]

The ranking system is symptomatic of a company that is too big to allow senior management to know everybody and that has too high a work over available manpower ratio to allow senior management to communicate with lower supervisory ranks about people's performance in more detail than "1", "2", "3" or "4".
So if you don't like it, either learn to live with it or join a small company.
Livingston's company's system sounds too communist to me to ever be succesful.

PS A while ago I had the pleasure to take part in some sort of a negotiation session amongst the "lower" supervisors, where everybody's top 10 list of supervised employees were merged and everybody tried to get their people in the best position possible versus the others. It was disgusting and great fun at the same time, until the department manager came up with someone that nobody else really knew and who ended up on spot number 1 just because the manager said so.