Annual review and the "matrix".
 

Some busybody in home office created a "matrix" to rank performance. Some kind of "objective" standard - with various factors weighted. New business, lost business, profitability. The final 2007 numbers were posted this morning (Coffee is for closers!), and my co-workers are pis$ed.

Me - the new guy is ranked highest in my unit and top ten percent nationwide. How did I do it? I don't know.. I worked the crappy book and mediocre contacts they gave me, added to it, and watched the bottom line. And it is a crappy formula.

So I get back from lunch - and the new numbers are down - and the November numbers are back up. My feelings of nice bonus and raise were fleeting and are slipping away. Back the the grindstone..:eek:

Woah.

The goal of employee evaluations:

1. Make them just good enough to keep them from quitting
2. Make them just bad enough to justify not giving them a raise
3. Add "metrics" and other gobblygook to legitimize it all under a smoke screen of quantitative "data".

Yes, I've been on both sides of this game enough to recognize this.

At least you have 'factors' - the way the bonuses are done here is upper managment decides how much $ to set aside for bonuses, and then the middle and lower managers decide on their own who gets what, in terms of a straight dollar figure. Yes, that's the way they do it. Now I know why that blonde chick with the big rack and dirty knees is rolling a new mercedes...

i know kung fu

there is no spoon

Tell him I said "hi"

We had a matrix for a while. They threw it out and went back to "manager discretion" a few years ago. Sure, some managers are tyrants and won't give anyone a raise, some think all of their people walk on water. The truth of the matter is my department is fighting to retain people, and the best way to do that is to pay them well...

As flawed as the formulae is - I still did rank pretty good and it would have rather heard a "good for you" than the *****'in I did. And nobody would take those numbers down without management approval..

MBO, metrics.......It's all BS in the long run.

Hire good people give them documented feedback, if they turn out to be duds, get rid of them and hire more.

Simple as that.

The rest of the BS is only there to justify the existence of HR, an unnecessary evil.

When I was at GE we had the 360 (from our peers) and the 9 Block (from management). If they like you they will make the numbers work, if they don't like you your fk'd...