May 11, 2010 at 7:52 am
Hey TravisDBA...
That sounds a little cynical...but I suspect true....
Being a Manager myself I take motivation and reward quite seriously and I don't just give rewards for people turning up for work...and it's those people I can't stand...and they exist in many industries....
Reviews are valid I think in some form, even if its just a mechanism of getting your views/responses etc on paper..
G
May 11, 2010 at 8:08 am
We just started doing quarterly reviews at my company. Part of the review includes going over the goals that the manager set for each person. It was a nice idea, but the problem was the goals were not written until 5 minutes before I logged in to review my goals. So I see it as just more paper work that means nothing.
May 11, 2010 at 8:25 am
Graeme100 (5/11/2010)
Being a Manager myself I take motivation and reward quite seriously and I don't just give rewards for people turning up for work...and it's those people I can't stand...and they exist in many industries....G
Oh so true! so true! The IT industry does not have the only corner in industry for hiring bozos for managers. 😀
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
May 11, 2010 at 8:26 am
I really actively dislike annual reviews. I always land in the "far exceeds expectations" or whatever that zone is named wherever I work, so it is not sour grapes. But tell me this. How can a VP who you have reported to for a week or month know about you or your performance? Its ridiculous. I often get moved around based on where fires are burning, because making order out of chaos is my focus. For years now I haven't reported directly to any one person for an entire year. The reviews are just plain embarrassing.
May 11, 2010 at 8:56 am
I'm in favor of annual reviews. I agree that feedback should be given throughout the year, but as much as it feel awkward, a once a year evaluation of where you stand is useful for a couple reasons. One is that your manager may not see all the things you do, and this is a chance to remind them in a totally acceptable fashion. Another is that not all managers (sadly) deliver feedback as needed, so resetting the meter to zero once a year, even if painful, is necessary.
Everyone wants to know how they are doing, wants to know that they are doing well and are well thought of, and most would like ideas on how to be better. This meeting should be that conversation. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, and it's both preparation and expectation that make the difference.
So my challenge back, is why do you hate them? Is it that they aren't effective? If they were effective, would that change the game? And if so, what change is needed? Or is it the reluctance to be graded? We get graded in school, cert exams, why not jobs? Or something else?
May 11, 2010 at 9:05 am
I am in full agreement with Steve on this one. Annual reviews are a waste of time.
If an employee has a shortcoming, why wait months to let them know of it? Issues should be handled immediately. A lot of supervisors do not understand the mechanics of technical positions so in our case, the reviews are sometimes rated on the nontechnical aspects.
Back in the military, we had annual reviews. Sometimes we were reviewed by "pretend leaders" (those who thought the could lead) who could not even find there rear end with a map and a compass. We thought them as a big joke but that was one joke that could affect your entire military career.
One thing I dislike more than an annual review is being told we need one and it never occurs. If I am going to be subject to one - let's get it out of the way as soon as possible so I can get my mind off it and focus on my real job.
Joe
May 11, 2010 at 9:13 am
Andy Warren (5/11/2010)
So my challenge back, is why do you hate them? Is it that they aren't effective? If they were effective, would that change the game? And if so, what change is needed? Or is it the reluctance to be graded? We get graded in school, cert exams, why not jobs? Or something else?
I wouldn't go so far to say that some hate them. Personally, I have just experienced in many shops that managers go through the "motions" of having their employees do them, which require time and energy to complete, but in effect they don't really change anything. In many cases shops fall under SarBox audit rules which require managers to do this. So, they go through the motions, Afterall, we are not there to just keep working with no incentives year after year. Who cares if a manager gives a person a great review and nothing changes either financially or career wise for them? I have known managers that basically in the review process give out a lot of "lip service" to people during reviews and then end up giving all the incentives and perks to their friends and girlfriends anyway. For a lot of people, the whole process tends to be a big waste of time and doesn't change anything. I have also seen some employees who felt that a manager was not treating them fairly in a review then take those grievances to HR and absolutely nothing came of it, because generally HR tends to believe whatever the manager says anyway. Very rarely have I ever seen an employee come out on the plus side of this. Some would say "Well then just leave". Well, that is always an option anytime, but not always an easy thing to just pull up stakes and leave, particularly in this rocky economy right now. 😀
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
May 11, 2010 at 9:42 am
I like Spolsky's and Fog Creek's take on performance and compensation.
We as humans tend to think we've done better than what we've actually done. So that means the majority are going to come away disappointed from an annual review which has incentives, etc., tied to it. So why go through that misery? Better to have continuous feedback throughout the year (which means managers have to be involved) and then an annual salary check at the end of the year which is based on measurable criteria... logical and while you can try and argue with it, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to do so.
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley
May 11, 2010 at 9:55 am
I personally don't like the reviews since they create anxiety on my part, and they often aren't well built to measure what I've done for the company. Am I being paid for what I set as goals personally? Or what I have done well for the company? It's a mixed message, in my experience, and one that hasn't worked well.
It could, but I think that a manager should regularly be providing that feedback about if I'm moving in the right direction or not. Maybe not daily, but every few weeks.
That reset of expectations and views does sometimes need to happen, but not always. I think part of what bothers me personally is that an annual review gets us boxed into a one-size-fits-all and that everyone needs a review. I think that some people need that reset, and need more specific goals. Fine, set them on a plan. Don't make the rest of us do that.
In terms of pay/bonus/performance, I'm torn here. I like the Joel system mentioned by Brian above. Make it a regular, measurable thing, rather than at the whim of the manager, who more often than not, will let his/her own biases dictate who gets what.
May 11, 2010 at 9:59 am
My take is it all depends on how this is performed and what process the company you work for undertakes. To me the best process encompasses continuous performance management. Agreed that if the only time you are given feedback and allowed to provide feedback is 1 or 2 times per year than it's not going to be healthy process for anyone.
However if the Annual or Mid year review is used as a way to summarize the continuous progress that has been tracked throughout the year then it can be an effective tool. I have always said that if you walk into the review surprised then you are not doing it right. You should know exactly where you stand with your management on a regular basis. My advice is if you don't know, then get that figured out today.
Bottom line is we have to be keeping score somehow otherwise we will not know if we are winning or not. Performance reviews are a businesses way of keeping score.
May 11, 2010 at 10:25 am
I don't much like review period either. Too much anxiety and other things to do.
Two things to make the annual review that much worse:
1. Quarterly Reviews
2. Self-Review required to complete the Annual Review
I have worked at places where a self-review, peer-review and manager review were all components of the annual review. Self reviews are pretty much like a sales gig, but must be done when it's review time.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
May 11, 2010 at 11:02 am
I totally agree Steve.
It turns out I have worked for a company for many years and I have had great reviews until one day a couple of years ago my new manager gave me a less than sparkling review. She brought up general issues (not supported by historical fact) that allegedly caused the review to be negative.
The idea of yearly reviews without weekly/daily guidance is absurd. It brings up all kinds of things that don't pertain to the quality of work. I know it is unrealistic to think everybody should like me. I also know that it is unrealistic for people in power not to use personal prejudice to influence their judgement. Therefore reviews without detailed examples hold no water and don't serve to improve a employees performance.
May 11, 2010 at 11:16 am
It has been my experience that reviews, even when they collect "360 feedback", cover issues/topics too far in the past to matter. If there's a problem, address it then - don't let it fester.
I wish more managers would practice MBWA - Management By Walking Around - get out and amongst the people that are supporting them. Listen to what is happening, observe who's doing the heavy lifting and who's slacking - and then lead, not manage - lead your team. Call slackers into a conference room and counsel then and there. If their performance turns around great, now those that have been carrying them will appreciate it; they see hard work is appreciated and valued. If the slacker fails to meet expectations, fire them for poor performance sooner rather than later. It will send a clear message to the other slackers.
It has been all too rare that the team I'm working with is 100% dedicated, hardworking types. When I was on a team of solid professionals, it was great! Work was fun, obstacles were just something to work around. When you've got a less than stellar team, work is a life-drain.
MBWA, lead by example, set expectations and let people know where they stand compared to them. To wait and do this annually or semi-annually is to potentially waste a lot of time and frustrate the good folks you want to keep on your team.
May 11, 2010 at 1:03 pm
It looks like any meeting is just a waste of time. I can hardly imagine a problem or theme for meeting which is impossible to solve via messenger/email or in extreme case phone. It's not even necessary to shlep your butt to the office at all. Working from home will save megagallons of oil and it will breath easier in big cities.
May 11, 2010 at 2:20 pm
box4garbage (5/11/2010)
It looks like any meeting is just a waste of time. I can hardly imagine a problem or theme for meeting which is impossible to solve via messenger/email or in extreme case phone. It's not even necessary to shlep your butt to the office at all. Working from home will save megagallons of oil and it will breath easier in big cities.
I used to be of this opinion. However, over time I have come to value face-to-face meetings and it's amazing how being in the same room as someone can lead to resolution when a chain of emails can't.
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 40 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply