For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.
Reader Responses August 5, 2004
SURVEY SAYS: When Was Your Last Appraisal?
August 5, 2004 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - Done right, there
are few more rewarding experiences than a performance
appraisal. Of course, they first have to be "done" - and then
done properly - in order to be effective. This week we asked
readers when they last got their "real" performance
appraisal.
Reported by Nevin E. Adams
I have to admit that I was surprised that more than a third ( 36.07% ) of this week’s respondents had gotten a “real” performance appraisal in 2004 – not that getting one, and getting a well-done one, were identical (more on that in a minute), and roughly 15% got their last one in 2003. More than a quarter ( 27.87% ) said their last appraisal was “a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away,” while more than 13% said they had never received one.
There was a lot of positive feedback from this week’s respondents (you can’t really judge from the quantity of verbatims reprinted here). Most read like, “…the company I work for now has a system in place that makes you feel like your work is appreciated and leaves you wanting to do better because it would be noticed.” One reader, who was on the brink of their SECOND 2004 evaluation, noted, “The process is short and simple and the feedback has been favorable.” But then went on to add, “…I’m kinda biased because I created it.”
The timeliness of some appraisals was more than just a function of conscientious management. As one reader noted, “We don’t let anyone have a raise without a review, so most employees want them processed in a timely manner.” She went on to note, ” Since I’m the one who enforces the rule, you can bet I make sure I get mine.”
Those who haven’t had an appraisal this year – or ever – may feel that those lucky enough to receive one this year are, well, lucky. Some were, but consider the reader who said, “Process started by me evaluating myself and providing it to my boss who then made changes. It’s probably an interesting way for my boss to learn how I think I’m doing. However, I’m not sure that was the point.” One reader who had received an appraisal in 2003 nonetheless cautioned, “…I’m sure I’m not the only one who had to write my own appraisal for my boss to concur with.”
About 8% cited “other” as the status of their last performance appraisal. One said, “We met in January 2004, acknowledged that there had been a 2003, then spent an hour plotting, er, planning about the next 11 months activities.” Another in this group observed, “The last time I received a “real” performance appraisal was 1979 in 5th grade. The report cards that I received in 5th grade contained both objective measures of my performances (average grades of tests and homework) and subjective measures (constructive feedback of my performance). I think that was the last time that I received such detailed feedback.”
Of course the best appraisals are not one-way streets. One noted, “It’s useful to have an opportunity to check in with my boss – a time for clarification and quantification of those perceptions. It’s a great time to drag out that ‘atta-girl’ or ‘atta-boy’ list. Unless we go around tooting our own horns, significant contributions often go unnoticed.”
Words of Advice
Words of advice came from the reader who said , “…many managers … don’t want to rock the boat and tend to give ‘peanut butter’ appraisals (spread the same comments to a group of employees despite differences in actual individuals). It’s a tough job, but a responsibility a manager needs to develop to gain the trust, respect, and productivity of his/her employees.”
Words to the wise (and well-intentioned) came from the reader who noted, “…It was a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, that a supervisor has ever provided meaningful feedback. More managers need to address the ambitious, self-directed among us. On that note, our workplaces are starved for mentors and models for ethical, empowering growth.”
There was a lot of irony in this week’s responses, for example: “Ever since I have reported directly to the VP of HR (over 15 years now, at a couple of different employers), I haven’t had a ‘real’ performance appraisal. I find it ironic that the person who insists that all others in the company dutifully complete the dreaded form never gets around to it for his direct reports.” And there was the reader who said, “You would think that working in Human Resources we would receive performance appraisals…. we sure do enough preaching about them!” Yet another observed, “I haven’t had a ‘real’ performance review since July 2001 and that wasn’t very well done, but at least I was told something about my performance besides, ‘great job-keep up the good work!’ I wanted more goal-setting, seminars, and that type of thing; more of a deeper appraisal….Even though I work in HR, it seems that upper management doesn’t often put in the time and effort to explain what areas of my performance are great and what needs improving – if anything.”
Structural Limitations
There are structural problems with many performance appraisal systems. “What gets me is the number system for evaluating performance: 1 through 5, 1 being ‘there’s the door.'” That reader went on to note, ” We are constantly being told that NO ONE rates a 5. There is always room for improvement. Unless you walk on water, there will be no 5. If they eliminate the 5, then no one would get 4’s.”
Another noted, “Company requirements to grade employees on a bell curve mean that most managers end up telling their employees that they are mediocre or worse (almost like a pass/fail grade) and that doesn’t do wonders for improving organizational morale and encouraging superior performance. The thing I was most surprised to see when I was doing performance appraisals was the degree to which the process seemed to perpetuate the performance differences between employees.” Another said, “Of course, I’ve been reviewed, most recently in 2003, but going through the review I was wondering who they were talking about because it didn’t seem to be me.”
Looking for a better way? One such alternative came from the reader who shared, “My solution to the onerous performance review, after many years of struggling with this task, was to perform many ‘mini-reviews’ all during the year. They were documented, and employees were encouraged to do most of the talking. A typical one would be 15 minutes in length, maximum. The mini-reviews were triggered by any employee action (positive as well as negative) that deserved review. The rationale is thi:; If an employee is off-track in March, why would you make a note of it and not address it until the traditional annual review is due in November?”
“…The best performance reviews I ever got were finding out after I left the companies that it took more than one person to replace me,” offered one reader.
In the “bet you don’t have an excuse as unique as this one” category, one reader noted, “A few years ago, a supervisor (no longer employed) told her people that the reason they didn’t get performance appraisals was that she left them on her kitchen table and her maid threw them away.”
But this week’s Editor’s Choice goes to the reader who noted, “My last review, I was told to do a self review and turn it in to my supervisor. She made a few changes and it became my official review. If I had known that earlier, I would have rated myself much higher.”
Thanks to everyone who participated in our survey!
Answer (a) early this year representing last year (2003). Process started by me evaluating myself and providing it to my boss who then made changes. It's probably an interesting way for my boss to learn how I think I'm doing. However, I'm not sure that was the point.
At my former company the performance appraisal process was a once-a-year event which filtered down from on high and which was performed by senior management down the line to the Executive Director level (me), by business line. As usual, my boss, 17 years my junior, was a gentleman and repeated the prior 5 appraisals of essential praise. He made one or two additional comments about some smaller issues that left room for approval and finished, as usual: "just keep doing what you're doing".
Written appraisals in an ever evolving format were conducted too together with self-appraisals. It was more like an annual rite of passage. If you really screwed up during the year you would hear about it in a nanosecond. If you didn't, everybody played the game and we all wondered "why"?
Our company performs annual appraisals every March. What gets me is the number system for evaluating performances. 1 through 5, 1 being "there's the door". We are constantly being told that NO ONE rates a 5. There is always room for improvement. Unless you walk on water, there will be no 5. If they eliminate the 5, then no one would get 4's. Shouldn't the pay increase scale be divided between 4 segments?
Survey Response: C . . . Ever since I have reported directly to the VP of HR (over 15 years now, at a couple of different employers), I haven't had a "real" performance appraisal. I find it ironic that the person who insists that all others in the company dutifully complete the dreaded form never gets around to it for his direct reports. My current employer also insists that employees complete a self-evaluation as part of the process. My new boss (VP of HR), after promising for weeks that he most certainly will follow the process, gave me a one paragraph statement saying "I agree with what this employee wrote in her self-evaluation"!!! And so it goes . . .
A (our firm does performance reviews annually for all employees) It was very satisfactory, a lot of thought goes into the procedure. Every couple of years all employees are actually asked to evaluate and critique the process.
I received an appraisal in April 2004. We have a form for everything here and the performance appraisal is no exception. So the process was organized but still not anything I am real thrilled about receiving even though it was fine. (I'm still here!)
What's a performance appraisal? You would think that working in Human Resources we would receive performance appraisals… we sure do enough preaching about them!
(a) sometime in 2004 Our reviews are always between January and March, with our raises going into effect in March. My reviews are always the same. "You are wonderful, you do a great job, what a great year, no problems," but here's your piddly raise. The same excuses year after year and I've been here 20 years (I'm not sure what that says about me). Review time is always a little depressing. I think I'd rather skip them and they can just put my raise on my check. I've given countless reviews to staff myself and always try to be frank and honest with employees. It's not a fun process from that end either. And, yes, I have to give them piddly raises also, with the same time-worn excuses.
(a) Sometime in 2004 - January to be exact. I must say I get a review every year, but it's more just "going through the motions" it seems. I always get an above average rating, which is nice, though!
Sometime in 2004, and I have my next one scheduled for Monday. The process is grueling, very nerve wracking due to "rating yourself", then letting someone else critique you. It's a necessary evil, but it seems that is all my manager does is follow after us with reviews every 6 months.
I had a performance appraisal conducted in May of this year on my anniversary date. It was my one year performance appraisal (started in May 2003). I've been in HR for 12 years and have had/conducted many performance appraisals. Basically, nothing that you hear in a performance appraisal should be a surprise. I believe in constant communication throughout the employment process with regard to letting your employees know when they are doing their job well, when they are not, and when they go above and beyond.
I would define a performance appraisal simply as a continuation/"annual summary" of that process to ensure that your employees continue to understand their job content and the expectations that the employer has of them. My performance appraisal went well but I did have a few things I questioned that were never brought up to me throughout the course of my first year of employment. My boss (HR Director) does a good job with performance management, but still needs to hone her skills when trying to be impartial or trying to be overly "fair" to the group as a whole. This problem is one that many managers have in that they don't want to rock the boat and tend to give "peanut butter" appraisals (spread the same comments to a group of employees despite differences in actual individuals). It's a tough job, but a responsibility a manager needs to develop to gain the trust, respect, and productivity of his/her employees.
C. a LONG time ago. Our company has an annual appraisal process where the employee writes his/her responses first and then gives it to his/her manager to complete prior to the appraisal discussion. My last appraisal was done in 1996. HR issued 2003's appraisal form to me in January 2003, and I submitted my portion to my manager in February 2003. My manager seems a little embarrassed about the fact that she hasn't done her portion, even though I NEVER bring it up to her! I guess I believe that old saying, "Beware of those who ask for feedback....they're probably looking for affirmation!" I know I will hear immediately about anything that needs correcting, and I don't need the affirmation.
C. a long time ago in a galaxy far away. I've worked for my current boss for about 10 years, and I think he gave me something resembling a formal performance review about 5 years ago. That was the only one. I'm still employed, so I guess that's some kind of performance feedback!
(c) At least it seems like it. I never considered myself one who needed constant "stroking" to feel good about my work...but it is disconcerting to be in a job for a year and have never had a one-on-one with my employer about my performance, or the performance of my team. Unfortunately, it wasn't much different from my prior boss. The best performance reviews I ever got were finding out after I left the companies that it took more than one person to replace me.
C, but mind you, I still have to give evaluations to my subordinates on schedule!
Unless "you really messed that up" counts as a performance appraisal, the answer is (b). Performance appraisals are written and stored on-line now.
A few years ago, a supervisor (no longer employed) told her people that the reason they didn't get performance appraisals was that she left them on her kitchen table and her maid through them away.
The company I worked for was very big on timely performance evaluations. If the VP of the manager/director did not have their evaluations done by the exact date, the VP was "reported" to the CEO of this large employer - something no VP ever wanted to happen. The evaluation form was a standardized form with 12 categories of essay questions.
My boss (a VP) thought so much of me that she completed the evaluation on the due date, emailed it to me and wrote, "If you have any questions, let me know. I have to have your signature page back by noon." She never discussed it with me. My thoughts - just give me the increase and forget the rest.....
Last performance appraisal: never at my current job (3 1/2 years). At my former job, annually. The experience there was listening to my boss tell me in one session a year what my weaknesses were for the entire year....
Survey answer: C
My last review, I was told to do a self review and turn it in to my supervisor. She made a few changes and it became my official review. If I had known that earlier, I would have rated myself much higher.
It was e) 2002. The process of self-evaluation is good because one has to honestly assess performance, goals and plans for professional development. And because you've put it in writing, you're more committed to following through on those goals. The performance evaluation by the manager can be valuable feedback, if the manager is willing to put effort into it. My current manager continually provides feedback and is a good mentor. However, in a past life, the managers could care less; they would just use the fill-in-the-circle form and not write anything in the comments section.
My answer is a) since I just had one last month. We are required to be reviewed every 6 months! What I don't like most about the process is the requirement we evaluate ourselves.
The answer is "other" - at my former place of employment in my last year there (2000). Actually, I had a true performance evaluation each year I worked there. It was very structured. There was a big questionnaire that I filled out to "review" myself. Everyone I worked with (my assistants, the receptionist/office manager, the other consultants) also filled one out regarding me (as I did for them). The questionnaires were slightly different depending on who was reviewing whom (e.g., peer-to-peer, consultant-to-assistant, assistant to office manager, etc.) but basically the same. The two principals then basically combined all of the information to look for trends (e.g., "several people have commented that you're easy to work with"), but all sources of information were kept confidential unless there was evidence of a significant personality conflict. In that case, the "conflict" person might actually attend the evaluation so the principals could get both sides of the story (this was rare). The best part was when they told you whether or not they agreed with your review of yourself! The funny thing is, I still fill out the self-review every year and turn it in to my current employer. I don't think he does much with it, but I find it helpful just to take the time to think about what kind of a job I'm doing and how I'm working with clients and my co-workers, even if I only do it once a year.
D) for me (although the boss has us doing for our subordinates).
(a) 2004, the company I work for now has a system in place that makes you feel like your work is appreciated and leaves you wanting to do better because it would be noticed.
(D) -- I am 61 years old and have never received a meaningful evaluation.
A) It was actually last month. We do beginning of year, and mid-year reviews consistently. At the beginning of the year we review performance for the last year, and set out goals for the new year. Our mid year review is look at our goals, assess where we are at, and any improvements that need to be made.
I'll answer (b), however I'm sure I'm not the only one who had to write my own appraisal for my boss to concur with.
Funny you should ask...I am doing our "out of the box...ready to wear" competency assessment as soon as I finish morning e-mails. It's a joke we help to perpetuate each year. We were supposed to do these quarterly, but this is the first time since last August we have done them. It was new last year and I spent an hour or more on it. This year I'm adding some points to each competency and letting it go at that.
(c) Along with a raise....
B. It is rather structured at our agency. Our FYE is 9/30 and all
performance appraisals must be completed/discussed with employees before year end. Mine last one was in mid-December 2003. This is an annual process. We are supposed to have interim reviews also, but those never seem to get done...
c) It was a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away that a supervisor has ever provided meaningful feedback. More managers need to address the ambitious, self-directed among us. On that note, our workplaces are starved for mentors and models for ethical, empowering growth.
(a) In 2004, and the process was good; very corporate and cautious but good. Making sure managers do regular performance appraisals seems to be a priority with my company, The Hartford. At least it is in their Retirement Plan Solutions department.
(a) I received one in January and actually expect to receive my mid-year today (a little behind schedule but I'll take it).
The process is short and simple and the feedback has been favorable. But then again, I'm kinda biased because I created it 🙂
(b) I got a review at the end of 2003. At our company the end-of-year reviews are tied to the annual raises for the following year. The review process is helpful. We look at what was accomplished during the year and go over goals for the following year.
B) In 2003
We have annual performance appraisals at my company. It is a very structured process (with 360 degree feedback from our colleagues). Some managers are better at working with the structure than others. And some deliver feedback better than others. The most talented managers are the ones that can give you constructive feedback to help you develop and improve yourself, without feeling as if you have been hit by a Mack truck.
For the last few years, the company I work with conducts quarterly "progress meetings" with the actual "performance appraisal" completed annually. This aids in assessing performance and recalling accomplishments. Also during this process, the employees "evaluate" their own performance and that of their direct managers.
Consistently executing the fundamentals is one of our company's targeted anchors. The revised performance appraisal is part of the process, and is received well by the employees as a self-motivator and coaching tool.
My answer is A.
My firm is pretty good and very consistent with its evaluation process. Every year, you get evaluated at the end of the year/beginning of the next year. Plus, each year, you find out about salary increases in May. This is opposed to my last employer, where you MIGHT get reviewed once every 24 months and who knows when or if you'd ever get a raise.
Although the firm consistently runs its evaluation process, a lot of people do not put a lot of merit in the process itself. You supposedly rate yourself at the end of the year and then your manager reviews your feedback and comes up with an overall rating for you. This might make sense except for the fact that management assigns ratings to employees in November, a month before employees are even asked to provide feedback. As a coworker of mine put it, the only thing that would change the manager rating would be "peeing on the CEO's lawn" (that would, of course, drop the rating), or giving policy to God (that, of course, MIGHT raise the rating...no promises there though...).
a) It often seems like the formal performance appraisal process is an annual "going through the motions" process for many.
I find the feedback I receive throughout the year much more valuable than anything I will receive on a form prepared under the watchful eye of HR "police" at corporate headquarters. Unfortunately, some managers provide no constructive feedback other than in the annual performance appraisal.
Company requirements to grade employees on a bell curve mean that most managers end up telling their employees that they are mediocre or worse (almost like a pass/fail grade) and that doesn't do wonders for improving organizational morale and encouraging superior performance. The thing I was most surprised to see when I was doing performance appraisals was the degree to which the process seemed to perpetuate the performance differences between employees. Good review recipients usually appreciated the kind words and did even better for a short time afterward, but unfavorable review recipients usually ended up leaving the firm shortly after.
Effective performance appraisals require a mixture of diplomacy skills and an ability to make constructive assessments. Many managers aren't suited to doing good performance appraisals despite their superior knowledge of the job requirements.
The link between pay and performance often seems like a salary administration shell game in these days of shrinking merit pools - depending on pay grades, median points and manager connections, a good review may not influence pay much. As a result, the review is not a great motivator for employees except for those who are honestly looking to do a better job regardless of the financial rewards.
A "REAL" APPRAISAL PERFORMANCE WAS DONE IN 2003 AFTER ABOUT 7 YEARS.
My solution to the onerous performance review, after many years of struggling with this task, was to perform many "mini-reviews" all during the year.
My mini-reviews met all the requirements of the formal annual review. They were documented, for example. My employees were encouraged to do most of the talking. A typical one would be 15-minutes in length, maximum.
The mini-reviews were triggered by any employee action (positive as well as negative) that deserved review. The rationale is this; If an employee is off-track in March, why would you make a note of it and not address it until the traditional annual review is due in November?
This solution always addressed the issues when they were fresh, took less time overall, corrected or encouraged actions, and my employees encouraged me to continue my particular practice on this issue.
My position was Director of Operations for one of the sectors of one of the World's largest high technology firms, from which I am retired after a 28-year career with them.
We perform them annually for all staff so mine was last month. Since they are all done at the same time each June, it forces the managers to do them with a more global view to the contribution each employee makes to the whole. As much as I hate to do them, they are a necessary evil. I am fortunate that my team is so great that the reviews are simply an opportunity to look each one in the eye and say "thank you for the great job" and "I am glad you are here" and to give them a gentle push to self improvement.
Unfortunately: (c) a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away
I'm happy to have a performance review. (...maybe happy isn't the best word.) I find that unless there's an exchange, it's hard to know how my performance is perceived...and often, perception is everything. It's useful to have an opportunity to check in with my boss - a time for clarification and quantification of those perceptions. It's a great time to drag out that "atta-girl" or "atta-boy" list. Unless we go around tooting our own horns, significant contributions often go un- noticed.
Since I now design these as one of my current projects, I must say we do practice what we preach. My last formal appraisal was done December of 2003 for fiscal year Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2003. We did planning for 2004 around that time too, and I had a six month check in that was also formal in April 2004.
Currently, I am designing an Exec. Performance Management program for a large hospital system in North Carolina. Trust me on this, we know how much a "process" is hated by people, so we work as hard as we can to make it as simple as possible while still being effective. If you need help with any design issues up there, I am sure we can help you out!!!
I would be curious to see a survey of just how many people have ever really obtained a "raise". Not counting "incentive" based increases (which I by necessity and consistently qualify for), the only way I have been able to obtain a "base pay" or "salary" increase is by moving from employer to employer with of course, the latest employer paying the most. This has been my pattern literally my entire professional career spanning over the last 25 years. Sometimes, I wonder what my economic gains really were considering all the unvested benefits that were lost over the years. Certainly, I collected other types of "gains" not of a direct economic value. This might be an interesting survey since my professional generation began their careers in the depths of the early 1980s recession and stretched over the boom/bust 90s and into the early 21st century. Perhaps my choice of industry (financial services) contributed to my nomad ways.....
a) We have an annual and a midyear, every year. It's simple...no review, no bonus. The bonus is tied to meeting our goals which are set at the beginning of the year. The midyear review is to make sure we are on target to reach our goals. There was resistance the first year, but now it goes pretty smoothly.
ANSWER: "C"
Being in a sales position, it's been interesting to note how the proverbial "performance appraisal" falls by the wayside as performance results increase and remain consistent.
In my experience, the process has been a joke for both large and small employers. When working for a fortune 5 company, the appraisal was annual and appeared to take the form of a graded bell curve. It was well known during the process that a certain percentage of individuals would fall into different appraisal "buckets".
Now, working for a 100 life employer the process is non-existent for the sales force, as long as sales meet and or exceed company expectations.
E) I think. We met in January 2004, acknowledged that there had been a 2003, then spent an hour plotting, er, planning about the next 11 months activities.
A combination of (a), (c) and (d). We sat down in the spring of 2004 for a quick rambling through the forms that were past the due date to the HR department that lasted at most 7-8 minutes. But in truth, I prefer that - I am a much harsher judge of myself than my bosses (so far) have ever been, and my boss is usually quick with any feedback...
a. I had a performance appraisal in early 2004, covering the 2d half of 2003. The process was very good; well planned, with good opportunities for input from me, my co-workers, even the outside vendors I worked with. But then, that was at the best company I've ever worked at! They've not always been so well-organized.
Answer: (c) a long time ago in a galaxy far away. :>) Actually, it was only about 5 years ago, at my previous employer. My current employer (the founder that is) is angry that we, as a company, don't have an elegant, reliable and consistently followed review process. Naturally, he's the biggest offender, not having done my review in my entire 3.5 years at this job. I think he's scared to criticize me; he's extremely averse to confrontation.
Performance Appraisals are entirely over-rated...I do not think that anybody ever changes a single behavior based on the conversation with a supervisor during a performance appraisal.
(c) A long time ago - I have been fortunate to work for the same man for 11 years now (2 different companies and 2 completely different job descriptions). I can't actually remember the last time I received a "real" evaluation. Each year he requires that I complete the self-evaluation and it ends there. Of course, the expected salary increase always appears - thank goodness!
(d) What's a performance appraisal?
Of course, I've been reviewed, most recently in 2003, but going through the review I was wondering who they were talking about because it didn't seem to be me.
e) I haven't had a "real" performance review since July 2001 and that wasn't very well done, but at least I was told something about my performance besides, "great job-keep up the good work!" I wanted more goal-setting, seminars and that type of thing; more of a deeper appraisal, although the raises have been great! 🙂 Even though I work in HR, it seems that upper management don't often put in the time and effort to explain what areas of my performance are great and what needs improving-if anything.
C) Along time ago in a galaxy far, far away! Now they don't give you a review unless you're not performing to standards so you just figure if they don't talk to you you're doing "OKAY"! So, every once in a while I take it just to look at it, and see how far I've come since October1999!
At the time the review process was pretty nerve-racking! The review consisted of the employee completing the 6 page form, and their supervisor completing the form. You had to say how you felt you were doing, where you needed improvement, accomplishments and goals for the following year. I was new to the industry, and didn't know how I was doing so I knew I had room for a lot of improvement. And six years later, here I sit - guess I improved, huh?
Although our company does have a formal performance review process, my last 'real' review was held sometime in the early 90's. Somehow it evolved into a one minute meeting whereby I was told my new annual salary and thanked for my efforts. I suppose since I am head of Human Resources, the boss feels that I don't really need a review like everyone else.
The process (for everyone else) consists of an annual meeting with a supervisor who reviews a series of evaluations based on ratings that range from 'below expectations' to 'exceptional'. The final rating determines the percentage increase. The total increase is capped, unless there is a promotion involved. Does it work? I guess. We haven't been able to come up with a better system. I honestly don't think a really great performance review system exists!
My answer is other. The last time I received a "real" performance appraisal was 1979 in 5th grade.
The report cards that I received in 5th grade contained both objective measures of my performances (average grades of tests and homework) and subjective measures (constructive feedback of my performance). I think that was the last time that I received such detailed feedback. I usually get "you're doing great" or "meeting expectations and tracking towards exceeding" and of course nothing is ever put in writing.
Just had a review appraisal 2 weeks ago. It covered the job duties (in template) and the % each counts toward the job and my next review a year from now. Thanks
I have a performance evaluation and quarterly updates. In addition, I have to do evals. I really, really hate the doing part and am not much more fond of the receiving part although the appraisals are good. Performance appraisals do not motivate me to do a good job or a better job or keep me from doing a bad job. I just do the best I can anyway. If there's a problem, tell me right away so I can fix it. If there isn't a problem, then let's just get on with the work at hand. There's certainly plenty of that to be done. If I need a thank you or some reassurance, I'll ask for it.
I've yet to work at a job that gives one. The rule of thumb is if no one tells you are doing poorly you must be doing ok.
(a) On my anniversary date of April 10, 2004.
The process is thought-provoking, but unpleasant as all our employees have to do self-evaluations as well as receive their supervisor's view of their performance. Additionally, each supervisor has an option for 3 peer reviews.
(c) Very routine w/no surprises, which is probably why my answer is (c).
My answer is (b) in August of 2003 (which means I'm due for another one now). We don't let anyone have a raise without a review, so most employees want the process in a timely manner. Since I'm the one who enforces the rule, you can bet I make sure I get mine.
The process was just OK in my opinion. My supervisor isn't one who likes conflict so I didn't really expect anything bad. Also, I replaced someone who was a real problem to her and so by comparison I'm wonderful (of course I'm wonderful by any standard...)
b) Our company requires performance reviews to be performed annually on the employee's anniversary. It's very structured and, for me personally, very uncomfortable (both positive and negative feedback make me squirm). Because we use software with standardized language, it's a challenge for managers to make the review "fresh" every year.
I know this is beyond the deadline, but during my last performance appraisal (I trust this is confidential to protect the innocent), I walked out after about 20 minutes. My former boss read the text of the evaluation word for word, since I was NOT provided with an advance copy. In addition, my former boss had the nerve to compare my performance with that of a co worker (who was in good graces, unlike me). It's not so much the dreaded template that's an issue, but rather the delivery that makes the difference. In this case, the delivery was dreadful.
(d); and (e) My 2 previous employers gave real performance reviews, and
the increase was directly related to your performance. With this employer, your increase is not related to your performance, it is determined by the budget and is in direct relation to who gets more (or less) to make up the total. So, over the last 15 years, my attitude has changed to "just show me the money" and skip the appraisal. It doesn't matter that I keep doing a great job (their words). And with the latest supervisor, the increase can come anywhere from 2-6 months late.
But I like my job, just the same, and am willing to put up with this.