Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It destroys morale, kills teamwork and hurts the bottom line. And that's just for starters.
"....... IMMORALITY OF JUSTIFYING CORPORATE IMPROVEMENT
I believe it's immoral to maintain the facade that annual pay and performance reviews lead to corporate improvement, when it's clear they lead to more bogus activities than valid ones. Instead of energizing individuals, they are dispiriting and create cynicism. Instead of stimulating corporate effectiveness, they lead to just-in-case and cover-your-behind activities that reduce the amount of time that could be put to productive use. Instead of promoting directness, honesty and candor, they stimulate inauthentic conversations in which people cast self-interested pursuits as essential company activities....."
This hits the mark. When I worked for my last company, everyone was of the opinion that PRS (Performance Review System) was one big joke. For a given project, all the managers go into a board room, decide where everyone falls and it is decided who gets what performance.
Only a certain number of slots are given (1 - execellent contributor, 2 - above successful contributor, 3 - successful contributor, 4 - basic contributor , 5 - below standards). Limited people get 1 and 2's, majority of people get 3's and a lot of times, the company mandates a certain number get 4's and 5's are given on a discretionary basis. If you get a 4, you are put on a performance improvement plan and a 5, you are told to immediately shape up or ship out - you are very thin ice. If you get a 4 or 5, when layoff comes, you are NOT eligible for a severance package. Also, perks like flex time and other items are taken away as well. And if you want to take vacation, you have to get special approval as well.
The ironic thing, what your performance rating is, it is already determined even before you have to do all the paperwork realted to the PRS. You have to request people to give feedback to your manager. You have to fill in objectives to accomplish in the next year, self appraisal. Each year, it is an 8 hour process to fill out the paperwork, get it reviewed by management which they reject it and give back to you, start the whole process again. You have to do this a few times before the finally approve it. An you know what, it is a waste of time since you rating has already been determined.
If you are a lucky person that management favors and decides to allocate the selective 1 or 2 rating to you, they will help you do the paperwork.
People knew my opinion on this, this is something that should be done by management.
Quote:
Originally Posted by azoria
OCTOBER 20, 2008
Human Resources
Get Rid of the Performance Review!
It destroys morale, kills teamwork and hurts the bottom line. And that's just for starters.
"....... IMMORALITY OF JUSTIFYING CORPORATE IMPROVEMENT
I believe it's immoral to maintain the facade that annual pay and performance reviews lead to corporate improvement, when it's clear they lead to more bogus activities than valid ones. Instead of energizing individuals, they are dispiriting and create cynicism. Instead of stimulating corporate effectiveness, they lead to just-in-case and cover-your-behind activities that reduce the amount of time that could be put to productive use. Instead of promoting directness, honesty and candor, they stimulate inauthentic conversations in which people cast self-interested pursuits as essential company activities....."
I like the performance evaluation process, but only if it is done well. I remember working for bosses who would not give any feedback until the annual performance appraisal time. Then he would unload from a list he had been holding about all the things that I had been doing wrong. I did not remember most of the things he talked about and even if I did the time to discuss these isolated issues had long passed.
A good manager gives a informal evaluation every week and deals with performance concerns right after the problem is identified.
Though a good performance appraisal can be a good opportunity to set goals and meet one on one with your boss in a controlled environment. I like the self appraisal process and an opportunity to compare my view of work performance against what my manager thinks and discuss the differences. I also like setting of established performance standards and expectations.
I like the performance evaluation process, but only if it is done well. I remember working for bosses who would not give any feedback until the annual performance appraisal time. Then he would unload from a list he had been holding about all the things that I had been doing wrong. I did not remember most of the things he talked about and even if I did the time to discuss these isolated issues had long passed.
A good manager gives a informal evaluation every week and deals with performance concerns right after the problem is identified.
Though a good performance appraisal can be a good opportunity to set goals and meet one on one with your boss in a controlled environment. I like the self appraisal process and an opportunity to compare my view of work performance against what my manager thinks and discuss the differences. I also like setting of established performance standards and expectations.
I agree. A good boss will give you feedback on a regular basis. The last place I worked the boss had me write a peer review on him. He didn't like the first one I gave him becasue I wasn' critical enough. So I really let him have it. Kinda awkward but he asked for it But it does kinda create openess and helped me understand his role better. Lots of places have official peer reviews that are supposedly confidential. But supervisors that have been around a while can tell who wrote which critique so I never liked them.
I think we do need appraisals. As long as they are set up properly. Not sure what else we could base raises on (not they they really base them on performance anyways). I would hate to see someone who does half the work getting the same raise as someone who busts their butt. But that's the reality of it. Of course I wouldn't get a raise then
I worked for a company that told its supervisors to go back and rate some of their employees poorly because they thought it was impossible that everyone in their group performed their job above average.
It's been my experience that the effectiveness of performance reviews varies greatly from company to company as well as manger to manager.
It's not fair to employees to give feedback about performance only once a year. Performance feedback should be an ongoing process. Frequent meetings about goals and expectations are much more effective.
At my last company I met with the people who reported to me once a month. They were expected to come to the meeting with a short list of things they wanted to accomplish in the upcoming month and I would have a short list too. Together we would agree on where the focus should be going forward.
In addition they would come prepared to talk about their progress toward the previous month's goals. Both praise and guidance were given as appropriate. Raises were based on merit as people achieved their business objectives. They were rarely if ever tied to time spent on the job.
It took a lot of work on my part to prepare for these meetings but the impact they had on performance and morale made the time spent worth it.
"I worked for a company that told its supervisors to go back and rate some of their employees poorly because they thought it was impossible that everyone in their group performed their job above average."
This is a legacy of the "jack welch" school of performance management. It is really demoralizing. When you get down to the point where your department is so stripped to the bone due to the layoffs yearly of people who didn't make the cut or were deemed 3s instead of 1s or 2s... And NO ONE IS EVER A 1... the corps begin cutting the best people just because your performance matrix requires you to do so? IDIOCY.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I like the performance appraisal process
But it does kinda create openess and helped me understand his role better. Lots of places have official peer reviews that are supposedly confidential. But supervisors that have been around a while can tell who wrote which critique so I never liked them.
