Does your performance review really reflect your performance?

[Rick Lee]

Das Boot's thread reminded me of some performance reviews, which had little to do with my actual performance. My current employer is highly regimented and almost paperless, everything is done on our intranet. Managers complete performance reviews with multiple choice answers and then some comments. I finished 2007 at 102.7% of revenue goal, which put me at #15 out of 75 sales folks. The vast majority did not reach 100% of goal. Yet, for my "meets revenue expectations" I was given a "satisfactory". Um, isn't anything above 100% of goal, by definition, "exceeds expectations"? Boss agreed with me when we discussed this, but he was unable to change it. Sorry, that's how it works with our intranet reviews.

Years ago at our previous company, the same boss (we were later acquired and changed names), gave me all "satisfactories", though I almost never less than doubled my monthly sales quota. I later learned that only one person in the company was given anything above satisfactory because they had to give her a raise to keep her from leaving. Otherwise, no one was supposed to get raises that year and so everyone was given all satisfactories.

When I worked at the RNC, our big boss told all his directors to fire anyone who got below "excellent" in any category. Of course, the directors didn't want to fire their entire crews, so everyone - I mean everyone - got "excellents" in every catgory. What re the odds that everyone there was excellent?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Nope.

I've received enough of these and written enough of these to know that the underlying rule is:

1. Make them positive enough to give the employee a motivational "feel-good" where they (1) don't quit and (2) maybe give you some extra productivity for free.

2. Make them negative enough where you either (1) can justify not paying them any more $$$ or (2) justify paying them as little extra as possible in terms of salary adjustments.

- - - - -

Ultimately these things are almost ALWAYS B.S. and about money. I have yet to either give or receive one that wasn't, to some extent.

FWIW the ones I've had to give/write in the past always were linked to what I was told by "higher ups" I had in terms of payroll expansion (if any) to allocate. That drove it, not necessarily me being a jerk (although I've been accused of that at times too...)

[Rick Lee]

Ah, finally an admission from mgt.!

My company's corp. culture makes Orwell's Ministry of Truth look like it encourages critical thinking and entrpreneurial spirit. This year I am way, way below revenue goal. But my boss keeps telling me it's ok because I took over a new territory. As long as I keep up enough sales activities, documented in our database, all is well. And so that's what I do. I have to enter seven per day and have eight meetings per week. Wanna bet what kind of review I get this year?

[kang]

Their job is to get as much work out of you for as little money as possible. The bigger the company, the more this is true.

They will only give you as much money as it takes to keep you there. If you leave, that costs them more, because they have to train someone new. They won’t give you a penny more.

They will push into working as much overtime as they can, until you are an inch away from quitting. They don’t want to push any harder than that, because they will have to train someone new, and that costs more.

[Rick Lee]

Kang, for once I agree with you. However, there is nothing wrong with a company doing what you describe. I'd just appreciate a little intellectual honesty in their so doing. Either scrap the whole pre-determined perf. review or make them honest. In a commissioned sales job, I have never expected a raise because of my performance review. A good performance, if the commission plan is done right, should reward itself with bigger commission checks. Why in the world would I care about my ranking in the company or a stellar review if it doesn't increase my income by a dime? Likewise, why would my less than stellar review last year motivate me to do anything differently, if I face no consequences for it?

[imcarthur]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Either scrap the whole pre-determined perf. review or make them honest.

Never going to happen. What would the managers do then? Isn't the main role of middle management: to create & move paper (or it's tech equivalent) in a circular motion?

Honesty? No to that too. If you are so good what do you need the manager's for? Hmmm.

Ian

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by imcarthur

Honesty? No to that too. If you are so good what do you need the manager's for? Hmmm.

Personally, I couldn't care less about anyone's approval. I live by the old mortgage biz. rule - your review is your W2. I don't care about recognition, titles, awards, etc. I really prefer to be left alone, not be on anyone's radar and just make as much money as I can. However, having a good perf. review on file might not hurt when it comes time to look at whom to lay off. If they want to can me anyway, then a perf. review ain't gonna make or break it. But I do wonder about how they determine layoffs.

[equality72521]

My boss almost always rates me higher than I rate myself. I sometimes wonder if he feels he would look bad to his boss for hiring me if I didn't exceed expectations. Not that I'm bad at what I do, I just don't think I rate as high as he says.

[the]

Originally Posted by kang

Their job is to get as much work out of you for as little money as possible. The bigger the company, the more this is true.

LOL, isn't that true both ways?

Employers try to get as much work out of employees for as little money as possible, employees try to get as much money out of employers for as little work as possible!

[imcarthur]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

I really prefer to be left alone, not be on anyone's radar and just make as much money as I can.

This has always been my MO. Do the job well. Enjoy it. Enjoy your clients. Be honest. I've have been reasonably independent & unsupervised on the road since 1982 - except for one 11 month period of post-divorce madness with a multi-national.

No reviews. No reports (unless I want to rant about something which I am prone to do). I sell.

Ian

[Rikao4]

Rick,
these things were created because we created HR..it's a form of CYA
years ago I got one of those..meets this and blah..
and like you not only did I exceed at my Co. I was the best in our Corp.
So I walked in got it , read it, crumpled it up and tossed it ..
walked out...
msg on my machine from his boss..
please come back...
oh..I have his job..and I don't use them.

Rika

[svandamme]

also depends on the type of Boss and corporate culture

6 years at previous company
first 3 had a German soft manager... he'de come around check if we need something
I'de work really well
i got P+ reviews and no crap from him
then i got a new one... a chick... career chick managing our team and at the same time whoring around with high visibility projects...
never saw her unless it was to b1tch about something... never took care of things that needed taking care off, never listening when pointed out to impending disasters... she soon left to other higher visibility things...
got replacement chick, friend of first one.. this one was even worse...
she'de bust our balls over arriving 15 minutes late (but not for working 2 hours late in the evening)... was whoring out in corporate projects , like " employee motivation " "competency classification programs"
basically she did EVERYTHING, written in Dogberts Top Secret Management Handbook.

If you don't know DTSMH, buy it , It's funny as hell, at least if you're reading it, not if your subject to it...The company itself was (is) a text book example of bad management simply based on accounting/shareholder appeasing... The core business, and those who did it well, mattered less, and less, and less
First it was Quality !
Then they kept *****ing about everybody having to do more, (obviously because all they did was sack those who worked, and hired more managers), with slogans like "Execute!Execute!Execute

Anyway, my performance did not change, but my performance review result did
my motivation after long enough abuse did go down... i turned paranoid, pissed off and bitter, burnt out

End in the end, i didn't even care about a raise.. i was happy with my deal, happy with my work, then after the BS, happy i got out of that dump

Since i left, they did more sacking, got eastern european offices to do the work halfassed
And making statements like " we were over delivering on our service in the past, it's better now"


Frankly, all i want, is to work hard, play hard, be appreciated, not have to suck up or listen to massive loads of Bullcrap.
Got that now... for better pay, and a Bmw company car on top..i should send that last manager a thank you note
"tx for bugging me out of that place, now my company BMW is nicer then that tiny little econobox hatch of yours"

[legion]

A few years ago Business Week did a survey of Rank & File employees at 1000 different companies. The results? 90% of those surveyed believed they were in the top 10% of employees performance-wise at their company.

Me? I have no such delusions. I produce quality work and get it done ahead of schedule consistently. I also routinely find myself with too little to do. (12,000 post, anyone? ) I do tell my boss when I have spare capacity, but it seems to take months to find me new work, and by that time I am busy again. I tend to need assignments that can fill 2-3 weeks of down time, and they are hard to come by. I see myself as top of the middle and capable of being in the top 10%, but not there. I honestly have no desire to give up my weekends and hobbies to be in that group.

Now I find myself in an interesting situation. I've been working on a large project since 2002. I have very rare and specialized skills (Aion developer). I have finished unit testing a year ahead of schedule--meaning I will have nothing to do for the next year. The problem is, there is still system testing and implementation. System testing starts in a year, and implementation begins 1st quarter 2010. I need to find an assignment that lasts a year so that I can return to the project for system testing and implementation. This project is the absolute top priority for the organization, and has been given carte blanche to pull any people necessary. Because of this and my rare skills, I know that I will be pulled back in a year from now.

[HardDrive]

ME: Was it good for you?

WIFE: Big time. Kaboom.

ME: (inside voice: "Still got it you sly old dog").....

[VaSteve]

I just left a job in consulting. All the professionals were projectized. We'd work on something for a client an move to the next project. Some had short project some had long projects. The model there was to write review for the person's performance on the project. At the end of the year, you'd pull together all the project reviews you had, all your billable hours, special projects (to benefit the firm) and be rated overall. The to ensure that the process was "fair and balanced" we'd rate EVERYONE in the firm at a particular level during a grueling 2 day session. So if people came into the process with "5" (the best) we'd normalize based on billable hours and other metrics. Many who were 5's were clear cut, it was the people on the cusp of a rank that we'd battle over. They claimed that pay was not tied to it, since the Partners decided pay raises and bonuses. We all knew that was bull****. Throughout the year, you had a "coach" that was supposed to make sure that you were getting things done, keeping hours up, getting training, etc. Mostly you didn't work for your coach.

3 was normal performance and was considered "good" - nobody wanted that. Overall, a 3 would still get you a raise. A 2 would get you some counseling, a 1 should have got you fired (only a Partner could do that). I actually handed out a 2 last year and a 1 this year. Overall. I told my "coachees" that it was very clear cut what you had to do to succeed and it made my job as a coach very easy.

I'd work my ASS off to get a good rating since that directly affected my pay. I knew what the metric were and what boxes I needed to check. At my level new or follow on business and billable hours ruled. I could have punked a client and done great in those categories and probably survived, but I really focused on doing a good job.

When I'd write a project review, I would provide specific feedback for folks. I had people thank me for being specific and honest. I am tough to please, but I think I was fair and nobody told me I wasn't.

I just took a government job. The expectations are WAY different. This was a former client and I'm still in the "impress the boss" mode. It doesn't matter. We have a defined step increase/cost of living system. None of my staff in "impress the new boss" (me) mode. It's really disheartening. Many are at the top of their grade, so there's little I can do to motivate them, they'll get paid their COLA and that's it. There are some situations in the gov't where and employee can be paid more (due to seniority) than the boss. Weird. It's very different for me. Plus, the place is a real mess and there are a lot of personality difficulties all over.

So I have chosen to focus on something else. What can I learn and what skills I can take to the next job. A "neutral" review won't hurt me, they can't take money away or demote me (just marginalize). Right now, I'm probably out performing their expectations, but not my own. Ah well, I'll look at it as my W-2 is my review. I'll learn to be fine with that. In this economy, I'm glad to not be out schmozing clients and killing myself against my peers. I have time to do stuff in the garage and hang out with my kids.

[Jim Richards]

Richard, ask your boss what percentage above 100% earned an "exceeds revenue expectations" rating. It might be above 102.7% by a lot or just a little. It depends on how the top 14 sales people did. Maybe you were too close to 100% to make the cut.

[Paco Anton]

Originally Posted by VaSteve

I just left a job in consulting. All the professionals were projectized. We'd work on something for a client an move to the next project. Some had short project some had long projects. The model there was to write review for the person's performance on the project. At the end of the year, you'd pull together all the project reviews you had, all your billable hours, special projects (to benefit the firm) and be rated overall. The to ensure that the process was "fair and balanced" we'd rate EVERYONE in the firm at a particular level during a grueling 2 day session. So if people came into the process with "5" (the best) we'd normalize based on billable hours and other metrics. Many who were 5's were clear cut, it was the people on the cusp of a rank that we'd battle over. They claimed that pay was not tied to it, since the Partners decided pay raises and bonuses. We all knew that was bull****. Throughout the year, you had a "coach" that was supposed to make sure that you were getting things done, keeping hours up, getting training, etc. Mostly you didn't work for your coach.

3 was normal performance and was considered "good" - nobody wanted that. Overall, a 3 would still get you a raise. A 2 would get you some counseling, a 1 should have got you fired (only a Partner could do that). I actually handed out a 2 last year and a 1 this year. Overall. I told my "coachees" that it was very clear cut what you had to do to succeed and it made my job as a coach very easy...

Steve, we must have worked for the same company

Now that I think about it. I've worked for three different management consultancy companies and the system was the same in all three, BS and all.

[ChrisBennet]

Joel Spolsky had a nice article on performance reviews.

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000070.html

Excepted from his blog:

"The effect of reviews on morale is lopsided: while negative reviews hurt morale a lot, positive reviews have no effect on morale or productivity. The people who get them are already working productively. For them, a positive review makes them feel like they are doing good work in order to get the positive review... as if they were Pavlovian dogs working for a treat, instead of professionals who actually care about the quality of the work that they do. "

-Chris

[speedracing944]

Back when I was managing a shift of technicians I gave very detailed reviews and allowed the person's team members to do a "peer review" as well. I did the peer review because we all worked very close together as a group and many times the amount of teamwork put forth either made us or broke us. I strived to make our group a very cohesive force and think I accomplished this goal. Our group made so many improvements to the processes beyond what was spelled out in the job. When review time came around people were reviewed honestly. If they were strong in an area I pointed it out. On the other hand if there was something they needed to work on I would point that out as well and did what I could to assist them in their development.

My team was payed accordingly. I never held back a raise if it was deserved and never feared my boss when it came time to justify it.

3 years ago the decision was made to shut down our facility and move production down south to save costs. Our processes were so lean they were unable to duplicate it even though I fully documented the process and spent time setting everything up and training the southern employees. I worked very hard to have everything transfer down there perfectly.

After 2 years they decided to shut down the southern plant and move the production to another in Texas. This was after losing $15 million the first year and $7.5 million the second year. Everybody who made the decision to shut us down lost their jobs.

I still have my past employees call me to see how I am doing and bounce ideas off me. I was truly blessed to have such a good group work for me.

Speedy

[stevepaa]

+1 Jeff N

They fiqure out who needs to get the 1 excellent rating and then give it to them w/o regard to actual preformance.

Everybody else gets satisfactory, except for the 1 who gets below expectations to balance the 1 excellent.

It is a sham.


Does anyone really think some sort of teacher evaluation in schools will really reward "excellent teachers" ?