Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase ««1234»»»

Competition or Cooperation Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Wednesday, December 4, 2013 8:47 AM
SSC-Addicted

SSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-Addicted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:37 AM
Points: 433, Visits: 319
Steve,

Give them each the rating they deserve (a 2 or higher based on what you said) and then give yourself a 3 for failing to follow company policy and NOT ranking someone below what the REALLY are. Problem solved! :D

You're a good man!
Post #1519668
Posted Wednesday, December 4, 2013 8:49 AM


SSC Veteran

SSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, November 20, 2014 8:30 AM
Points: 268, Visits: 960
Under such a system five years ago, my manager told me that it was "my turn" to "take one for the team" and be the 2, promising that it would be at least three more years before my turn came up again and that I was not really a 2. When I gave my notice, he was shocked that I didn't respect the way he stood up for the team with his fair system [and that I could have found time to interview elsewhere with my overloaded workload!]
Post #1519669
Posted Wednesday, December 4, 2013 9:37 AM
SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, October 30, 2014 4:07 PM
Points: 193, Visits: 292
The rating system you mentioned is assinine because it defines someone as deficient even if they are a star. This is just another example of the just plain stupidity that "management gurus" push.


I study management theory, and I am not aware of any popular theorists who say this. On the contrary, W. Edwards Deming is a management theorist whom I respect, and he has explained in detail how such employee rating schemes are deficient.
Post #1519694
Posted Wednesday, December 4, 2013 9:47 AM
SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, October 30, 2014 4:07 PM
Points: 193, Visits: 292
One of the main reasons to evaluate employees is to ensure that everyone is being treated fairly. The system outlined in the article is inherently unfair. Additionally, such a system has nothing to do with accomplishing business goals. It deserves to be eliminated for that reason alone.
Post #1519697
Posted Wednesday, December 4, 2013 9:52 AM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 10:31 AM
Points: 1,423, Visits: 1,867
I once worked for a company where the managers couldn't give out any 5's. But you were expected to work towards a 5. I asked what was the purpose of having an unachievable goal? They gave a fancy/wordy explanation that basically was "you're the horse that has a carrot on the end of a stick".

These type of rankings do not promote competition or team work. If you're a 3+ you're not going to want to mentor a 2, it's easier to keep them there. And if you're a 2 who's going to help you become a better worker?
Post #1519700
Posted Wednesday, December 4, 2013 10:14 AM


SSC-Dedicated

SSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-Dedicated

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 4:55 PM
Points: 31,278, Visits: 15,736
Markus (12/4/2013)
Friends of mine worked for a company that does this and the lowest rated employees are gone in year 2 if they don't improve. I don't know how you improve it your manager has to rate all employees in a 1,2,3 type manner. They used the reasoning of we want only the best employees to work at the company. However, what it DID do was cause a lot of turnover as many good employees would leave.



the hypothesis is that change is good and you are constantly driving people forward to improve. And that those that don't constantly improve should go.

It's a system that can work in some areas (sales), but often doesn't work in others. It also assumes that someone having a bad year or two (health, divorce, kids, etc) isn't worth keeping around.







Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Post #1519706
Posted Wednesday, December 4, 2013 10:25 AM
Old Hand

Old HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, November 20, 2014 3:37 PM
Points: 312, Visits: 951
In general performance reviews are a charade.
Before the results of the review process are known, it has already been decided how much will be allotted to merit raises and what the distribution within each department/group is. Rarely are high performing groups rewarded over average or low performing groups.

Usually these parameters have been set at at least two levels above your manager. So it really becomes a "grin and bear it" situation.
Post #1519709
Posted Wednesday, December 4, 2013 10:33 AM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 12:57 PM
Points: 1,314, Visits: 2,897
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (12/4/2013)
Markus (12/4/2013)
Friends of mine worked for a company that does this and the lowest rated employees are gone in year 2 if they don't improve. I don't know how you improve it your manager has to rate all employees in a 1,2,3 type manner. They used the reasoning of we want only the best employees to work at the company. However, what it DID do was cause a lot of turnover as many good employees would leave.



the hypothesis is that change is good and you are constantly driving people forward to improve. And that those that don't constantly improve should go.

It's a system that can work in some areas (sales), but often doesn't work in others. It also assumes that someone having a bad year or two (health, divorce, kids, etc) isn't worth keeping around.


The place I know of that does this is probalby the #1 employer in the Metro area here and that process applies to all departments. They go through employees like crazy.. constant turnover and a very stressful IT Dept.

Thing is the bottom person can be a good employee... just a tad not as good as the person above him. Not that they are bad... Our DBA staff here... 5 DBAs all are very good... now in that senario you have to rate them and the bottom person has a target on them. Sales... yea, I can understand that.



Post #1519713
Posted Wednesday, December 4, 2013 10:36 AM


SSC-Dedicated

SSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-Dedicated

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 4:55 PM
Points: 31,278, Visits: 15,736
djackson 22568 (12/4/2013)
We need talented coders to solve tough problems, and we need average programmers to tackle mundane tasks. Both are necessary


Absolutely. What we don't want or need is deficient employees. We do need people who are willing to just do a job, and do it well, but who have no need to star at something.


Yep. For sure. We want competent, willing to learn and improve, and willing to do what it takes employees. We also need to let people know when they need to improve, but we certainly don't need to force rank people in this way.







Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Post #1519714
Posted Wednesday, December 4, 2013 10:40 AM
SSC-Addicted

SSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-Addicted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, November 10, 2014 7:42 AM
Points: 492, Visits: 814
Markus (12/4/2013)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (12/4/2013)
Markus (12/4/2013)
Friends of mine worked for a company that does this and the lowest rated employees are gone in year 2 if they don't improve. I don't know how you improve it your manager has to rate all employees in a 1,2,3 type manner. They used the reasoning of we want only the best employees to work at the company. However, what it DID do was cause a lot of turnover as many good employees would leave.



the hypothesis is that change is good and you are constantly driving people forward to improve. And that those that don't constantly improve should go.

It's a system that can work in some areas (sales), but often doesn't work in others. It also assumes that someone having a bad year or two (health, divorce, kids, etc) isn't worth keeping around.


The place I know of that does this is probalby the #1 employer in the Metro area here and that process applies to all departments. They go through employees like crazy.. constant turnover and a very stressful IT Dept.

Thing is the bottom person can be a good employee... just a tad not as good as the person above him. Not that they are bad... Our DBA staff here... 5 DBAs all are very good... now in that senario you have to rate them and the bottom person has a target on them. Sales... yea, I can understand that.


Please understand that as a former Purchasing Manager I have zero love of sales people. While I see your point about sales, I don't agree. I believe it is possible (am I REALLY saying this???) to have a sales force where everyone is doing well and exceeding expectations(gag, gag, gag). You would still have someone who had the lowest sales.

My point is that I do not believe this rating method is ever fair. Even if we use an extreme example of rating and firing politicians, it doesn't work. Of course in that case, we all know all politicians are failures...

EDIT: I just saw the post Steve made where he suggested that this "may work" in some areas, and he used sales as an example. In reality it is probably true that most sales groups have people who are simply not cutting it. Sales is a unique type of role to play, and maybe there are some companies where this might "work". I still don't think it is fair, and I do NOT mean to imply that Steve was saying it is fair either, only that there may be places it might work. I simply shudder to think anyone has to live with this type of review.


Dave
Post #1519716
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase ««1234»»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse