Jump to content

Evaluations


Square Wheels
 Share

Recommended Posts



Just now, Square Wheels said:

I've been doing employee evals for years, it was one, then two, now it's eight or so. 

I have never liked writing them.  Sitting with the staff is great, it's the writing I hate.  I am always late.

Just give 10% raises and restructure the bonuses to be more exciting.

The rest - like "reviews" - are almost total management BS.

Sorry you have to do them.

  • Awesome 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Square Wheels said:

I've been doing employee evals for years, it was one, then two, now it's eight or so. 

I have never liked writing them.  Sitting with the staff is great, it's the writing I hate.  I am always late.

Please do a forum member evaluation of me.  Do not pull any punches.  I can take it.

  • Heart 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jsharr said:

He got one dead on and missed the first two by a mile.

Never.......... ever........ use the term "He got one dead" in a casual conversation around a member of the RCMP.

Zephyr is already reaching for his dive mask.

 

  • Heart 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't do an employee eval until after you know what the pay budget looks like.  You have to know in advance how much you have to give out in raises so you can nit pik those who aren't going to get one and thus have the proper justifications lined up.

 

Just my experience from stretches working in the big company world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

You can't do an employee eval until after you know what the pay budget looks like.  You have to know in advance how much you have to give out in raises so you can nit pik those who aren't going to get one and thus have the proper justifications lined up.

 

Just my experience from stretches working in the big company world.

Nailed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't do them here. Ever. As with most things, if they haven't done it in the last 35 years, then it obviously doesn't need doing.

I got a good bump 2 years ago, ~16%, which brought me up to market rates. Nothing since, although they are now paying straight time of overtime charged to a project. That's cool.

Bonuses have been meh, around 4%.

No bonus last year, "New company wants to pay after fiscal year. Might pay in March/April of next year.". Which, IOW, means nuttin' honey.

We're prolly already not going to get one this year b/c our corporate overlord got a project, then gave it to us (at lower than our normal rates and in Arizona (way, way,  away from our natural geographic area)), and now we find out that they haven't paid anyone associated with the project, no engineering, no vendors, no contractors. They were waiting on the crop harvest to pay everyone (not disclosed) and now the harvest isn't very good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dottles said:

Nailed it.

Yeah, it was always fun to get the word from on high that there was X amount of dollars or percentage available for the whole group.  Giving a "good" bump to one person screwed the rest. You could usually actually find an underperformer to screw - NO RAISE FOR YOU! - but even then, it was not too flexible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

Yeah, it was always fun to get the word from on high that there was X amount of dollars or percentage available for the whole group.  Giving a "good" bump to one person screwed the rest. You could usually actually find an underperformer to screw - NO RAISE FOR YOU! - but even then, it was not too flexible.

I'm glad you like doing that stuff.  I mean, at least can put up with it.  Not my cup of tea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dottles said:

I'm glad you like doing that stuff.  I mean, at least can put up with it.  Not my cup of tea.

Hell NO. I ran from managing.  I hated it for the reasons like the ones above, and many more.  Awful.  But that's how it used to work - up through the technical ranks and then into management ranks. But I don't like people - as many tech folks don't - so that was torture.  Luckily, I'm now in a flat org with all team members "senior" contributors and a single level of management.  Much simpler and pleasant.

  • Envious 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ours have nothing to do with pay at all..., as we are paid by rank and service, not performance.  They also have nothing to do with promotion as that is a whole different process.

Really for us it is help identify potential training for each person in the upcoming year (both needs and wants) and to let them know at what level they are performing.  For those performing at the acceptable level, it is really a nothing document.  Where this carries weight is when someone is underperforming.  When you want to fire someone the first thing they want to see is where have you documented their poor performance,  advised them of their poor performance, what  steps you implemented to correct their performance and documentation showing the performance has not improved to acceptable levels

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Zephyr said:

Where this carries weight is when someone is underperforming.  When you want to fire someone the first thing they want to see is where have you documented their poor performance,  advised them of their poor performance, what  steps you implemented to correct their performance and documentation showing the performance has not improved to acceptable levels

I approve of this message.

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then there was the Navy way to do evaluations on a 1.0 to a 4.0 range.

4.0 you'd have to be too perfect to get one of these and no one is perfect.  It's rare to see on let alone get one.

3.8  You have to be an outstanding performer to get these and they are what you strive for.

3.6  You are an average schmuck.

3.4  You are a detriment to the Navy and you will not get a review lower than this because it reflects on your supervisor and command.

There are no others unless you are in the brig.

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our process was...   I needed to rank my 10 employees in order of performance. and I had to document and justify the ranking.  Then the other managers for our work group across the company, would need to meet and we would need to rank all 65 of our employees 1 to 65.   Of course, then there were the meetings with our Director, who needed understand and agree.  Then the meeting with our VP along with HR.  HR wanted to know our plans to improve the poor performers.   Then there was the performance enhancement plan (PIP) and more documentation  for the poor reformers.   

Last but not least, was the final meeting with Exec VP the for all of the managers who report to the Exec VP (and HR again) and we explained the ranking and answered questions when needed.  It was fun to watch some managers crash and burn during the questions.  At least I knew I was gong to be ranked last.  I was sure the meetings with the Exec VP and our VP were just a test for the managers.

That was our input. Then the black box of Compensation Review took over, and in 2 months we got the results and the new budgets for the next year.

We needed to document EVERYTHING.  What a bunch of BS.  I'm sure that all the documentation for the good performers was evidence for the poor performers to prove all of the employees were measured by the same metrics.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bikeguy said:

Our process was...   I needed to rank my 10 employees in order of performance. and I had to document and justify the ranking.  Then the other managers for our work group across the company, would need to meet and we would need to rank all 65 of our employees 1 to 65.   Of course, then there were the meetings with our Director, who needed understand and agree.  Then the meeting with our VP along with HR.  HR wanted to know our plans to improve the poor performers.   Then there was the performance enhancement plan (PIP) and more documentation  for the poor reformers.   

Last but not least, was the final meeting with Exec VP the for all of the managers who report to the Exec VP (and HR again) and we explained the ranking and answered questions when needed.  It was fun to watch some managers crash and burn during the questions.  At least I knew I was gong to be ranked last.  I was sure the meetings with the Exec VP and our VP were just a test for the managers.

That was our input. Then the black box of Compensation Review took over, and in 2 months we got the results and the new budgets for the next year.

We needed to document EVERYTHING.  What a bunch of BS.  I'm sure that all the documentation for the good performers was evidence for the poor performers to prove all of the employees were measured by the same metrics.

Sounds like a terrible way of conducting staff performance and developing staff to become better.  When I did staff evaluations, it was never against that type of system.

I sat with a bunch of other managers and we developed a skill based level set for our occupational group in the company at a national level.  It helped staff confirm some key types of skills and different levels from basic to highly skilled/mentoring/thought leadership...so they could benchmark themselves to develop their own path for career development.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Bikeguy said:

Our process was...   I needed to rank my 10 employees in order of performance. and I had to document and justify the ranking.  Then the other managers for our work group across the company, would need to meet and we would need to rank all 65 of our employees 1 to 65.   Of course, then there were the meetings with our Director, who needed understand and agree.  Then the meeting with our VP along with HR.  HR wanted to know our plans to improve the poor performers.   Then there was the performance enhancement plan (PIP) and more documentation  for the poor reformers.   

Last but not least, was the final meeting with Exec VP the for all of the managers who report to the Exec VP (and HR again) and we explained the ranking and answered questions when needed.  It was fun to watch some managers crash and burn during the questions.  At least I knew I was gong to be ranked last.  I was sure the meetings with the Exec VP and our VP were just a test for the managers.

That was our input. Then the black box of Compensation Review took over, and in 2 months we got the results and the new budgets for the next year.

We needed to document EVERYTHING.  What a bunch of BS.  I'm sure that all the documentation for the good performers was evidence for the poor performers to prove all of the employees were measured by the same metrics.

H  O   L  Y     S   H   I    T  !    !    !    !

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Airehead said:

I have 17 direct reports. I hate writing them. I am so behind that I believe I am ahead. Yes I know 17 is too many direct reports. 

WAY too many!  I feel bad for my boss with 10.  The most I ever had was aboot 6 and I didn't like that!

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, RalphWaldoMooseworth said:

WAY too many!  I feel bad for my boss with 10.  The most I ever had was aboot 6 and I didn't like that!

Way too many, and therefore bad management.  No way can a person properly manage a group of 17 easily or efficiently. I'd break it into two or three smaller groups led be "leads" or "coordinators" or "deputies" or whatever so you could then just manage those leads. And, that would groom them to be the next "you" when you move up (or out).  I like teams of four plus a lead.

I'd be interested in how the military folks or maybe cops or firefighters organize themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

Way too many, and therefore bad management.  No way can a person properly manage a group of 17 easily or efficiently. I'd break it into two or three smaller groups led be "leads" or "coordinators" or "deputies" or whatever so you could then just manage those leads. And, that would groom them to be the next "you" when you move up (or out).  I like teams of four plus a lead.

I'd be interested in how the military folks or maybe cops or firefighters organize themselves.

I thought you liked your "flat" organization?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

Way too many, and therefore bad management.  No way can a person properly manage a group of 17 easily or efficiently. I'd break it into two or three smaller groups led be "leads" or "coordinators" or "deputies" or whatever so you could then just manage those leads. And, that would groom them to be the next "you" when you move up (or out).  I like teams of four plus a lead.

I'd be interested in how the military folks or maybe cops or firefighters organize themselves.

Yep, it is a mess I inherited. I have actually reduced it by four so far. Org changes that are outside principals and vice principals need approval from state Ed. You cannot be too creative. When I started all the Ed leaders were principals and the school leaders org chart had two levels. Me and then principals and clinical sups.  I created four vp positions and it ruffled feathers. We really need an assistant superintendent or two. I am working on that. 

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RalphWaldoMooseworth said:

I thought you liked your "flat" organization?

I love it.  But if I worked at a place with 19 folks directly under me, I would RAPIDLY reorganize them into bite size groups.  My "flat" group, at usually 10-12 folks is about as big as one could go. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

I love it.  But if I worked at a place with 19 folks directly under me, I would RAPIDLY reorganize them into bite size groups.  My "flat" group, at usually 10-12 folks is about as big as one could go. 

That is a good size - 6-10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Bikeguy said:

Our process was...   I needed to rank my 10 employees in order of performance. and I had to document and justify the ranking.  Then the other managers for our work group across the company, would need to meet and we would need to rank all 65 of our employees 1 to 65.   Of course, then there were the meetings with our Director, who needed understand and agree.  Then the meeting with our VP along with HR.  HR wanted to know our plans to improve the poor performers.   Then there was the performance enhancement plan (PIP) and more documentation  for the poor reformers.   

Last but not least, was the final meeting with Exec VP the for all of the managers who report to the Exec VP (and HR again) and we explained the ranking and answered questions when needed.  It was fun to watch some managers crash and burn during the questions.  At least I knew I was gong to be ranked last.  I was sure the meetings with the Exec VP and our VP were just a test for the managers.

That was our input. Then the black box of Compensation Review took over, and in 2 months we got the results and the new budgets for the next year.

We needed to document EVERYTHING.  What a bunch of BS.  I'm sure that all the documentation for the good performers was evidence for the poor performers to prove all of the employees were measured by the same metrics.

 

53 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

H  O   L  Y     S   H   I    T  !    !    !    !

I echo these final words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Bikeguy said:

Our process was...   I needed to rank my 10 employees in order of performance. and I had to document and justify the ranking.  Then the other managers for our work group across the company, would need to meet and we would need to rank all 65 of our employees 1 to 65.   Of course, then there were the meetings with our Director, who needed understand and agree.  Then the meeting with our VP along with HR.  HR wanted to know our plans to improve the poor performers.   Then there was the performance enhancement plan (PIP) and more documentation  for the poor reformers.   

Last but not least, was the final meeting with Exec VP the for all of the managers who report to the Exec VP (and HR again) and we explained the ranking and answered questions when needed.  It was fun to watch some managers crash and burn during the questions.  At least I knew I was gong to be ranked last.  I was sure the meetings with the Exec VP and our VP were just a test for the managers.

That was our input. Then the black box of Compensation Review took over, and in 2 months we got the results and the new budgets for the next year.

We needed to document EVERYTHING.  What a bunch of BS.  I'm sure that all the documentation for the good performers was evidence for the poor performers to prove all of the employees were measured by the same metrics.

Survivor Island.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

Survivor Island.

Probably closer to the truth than not.

We used an, A B C rating ranking.

A = exceptional

B = good performer

C = unacceptable performance

Our ‘list’ was split into 3 sections one for each rating.  If you were a C two years in a row, you were gone.

There were ‘expectations’ from HR about how many (based on a percentage of the total) about how many people would fall into each category.

There weren’t too many A rated people, because the budget couldn’t pay for the increases.  There were a LOT of B rated people.  

And of course, there were a C rated people each review.

My first year as the manger during the mid year review after we explained our list and ratings to the Exec VP.  He asked, a question about the bell shaped curve and what was wrong with the curve?  Crickets… a room full of people didn’t respond.  So I answered.   So, you want a flatter bell shaped curve.  He says;  Yes… the rookie gets it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it too bad that the "rules" might cause a department made up of great workers to fire one or more because............

 

I once won an award at P&W Aircraft.  Nothing big, just a pair of Whalers tickets.  I got them and went.  I also explained to HR that I was not the only person involved in the situation and that 3 other people, one of ours and two plumbers had also worked the problem in a dangerous environment.  The plumbers were eventually given the same reward.  My boss got back from vacation and turned down the reward for my departments other guy explaining........"I hire exceptional people, I expect exceptional work as standard, we don't give rewards for standard work"  

The following week I flatted all 4 of the tires on his Firebird Trans am in a way that made the go flat down the road after leaving work.  He never found out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bikeguy said:

Probably closer to the truth than not.

We used an, A B C rating ranking.

A = exceptional

B = good performer

C = unacceptable performance

Our ‘list’ was split into 3 sections one for each rating.  If you were a C two years in a row, you were gone.

There were ‘expectations’ from HR about how many (based on a percentage of the total) about how many people would fall into each category.

There weren’t too many A rated people, because the budget couldn’t pay for the increases.  There were a LOT of B rated people.  

And of course, there were a C rated people each review.

My first year as the manger during the mid year review after we explained our list and ratings to the Exec VP.  He asked, a question about the bell shaped curve and what was wrong with the curve?  Crickets… a room full of people didn’t respond.  So I answered.   So, you want a flatter bell shaped curve.  He says;  Yes… the rookie gets it.

My dearie was a manager in various jobs at a national oil firm. Managers had to place their direct reports in a bell curve...it was carrying over the damn engineering school curve..where you failed based on that way of weeding out students.  Just stupid for the workplace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, shootingstar said:

Just stupid for the workplace.

I agree...  but that's the way it worked.   I was way too many pay grades below what was needed to get that fixed.

52 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

Isn't it too bad that the "rules" might cause a department made up of great workers to fire one or more because............

I was fortunate that the other regions of the company had enough poor performers so my people didn't get to the C level.   I'd say the people who earned the C rating deserved it.  Some things people did (or didn't do) was documented rather well and in come cases you just could not believe what they did.

That said...  the VP was still telling us we weren't tough enough on rating our people.  I disagreed, and I needed to provide documentation to back up my case.   Which I did.

  • Heart 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bikeguy said:

I agree...  but that's the way it worked.   I was way too many pay grades below what was needed to get that fixed.

I was fortunate that the other regions of the company had enough poor performers so my people didn't get to the C level.   I'd say the people who earned the C rating deserved it.  Some things people did (or didn't do) was documented rather well and in come cases you just could not believe what they did.

That said...  the VP was still telling us we weren't tough enough on rating our people.  I disagreed, and I needed to provide documentation to back up my case.   Which I did.

You deserved your retirement. For sure, poor performers, especially just lazy/not doing legal stuff should be let go. with documentation, set company standards and procedures laid out at time of hire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/6/2020 at 4:53 PM, Zephyr said:

Ours have nothing to do with pay at all....  They also have nothing to do with promotion as that is a whole different process.

I used to have to do three other’s annual reviews, but they were unconnected to raises. In my new situation, I may have to do one, or maybe none.

I was told in October that I’d get a 7% raise effective January 1. When I inquired in mid-January if that was in effect, I was told it would be, and the contracts person would contact me. I’ve heard <crickets> since then. I’m sure I will eventually get it and back-pay, but it annoys me that I have to be perceived as continually complaining in order to get what I was told I would.

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...