May 11, 2010 at 3:18 pm
K. Brian Kelley (5/11/2010)
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.
I too have thought this way. I do see the value in face to face meetings and feel there needs to be a happy medium - some face time v. some telecommute 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 4:48 pm
I agree that performance reviews are a waste of time. Even more so the way my company handles them. The first few, through my probation period, were done by my project manager, because i think we were lacking in HR at the time.
He was also the sort of manager that chatted on a daily basis, so the review was more of a formality for the paperwork than anything else.
The next 2 (my first year and second year) reviews were done by the HR staff. Makes sense in a way that these are people who specialise in talking to people concerning their employment. But it was also the most useless thing i have ever been to. I found it similar to explaining all my technical success/challenges to my parents. They don't know anything about the technology i use, they have no idea what scheduling re-indexing jobs means, and they have no idea about the 100s of clients the consulting company has, so there was no way they could understand the context of what i was doing.
All they really cared about was the feedback my client managers gave on the review paperwork. Anything i said could have been made up and they wouldn't know. They had no idea how much work i did that year, or how important the work was. They just saw, and probably filtered, the reference comments on the review form.
And at the end of the review, he just treated me like any 'average' person who had an 'average' review. Nothing he said made me feel like my achievements were acknowledged. And so instead of getting recognised as worth way more than i'm currently getting paid, i got sent on my way with a small percentage top-up as a way of saying "you're doing well, here's a little more for your efforts" rather than the "You're doing this and getting paid that? Well, we should fix that up straight away!".
So yeah, i really hate the performance review process, but only when it's some HR drone who knows nothing about the work you've been doing, doesn't care that you're getting paid peanuts for being in one of the most critical roles at a client site and kicking some serious arse. Just as well i'll be working directly for my client in the next 2 months - you won't believe the pay increase from what my HR guy thinks i'm worth compared to what the people i do the work for think i'm worth.
May 12, 2010 at 4:25 am
Team penning looks like fun Steve. Over here a similar sport goes by a different name 😉
But I entirely agree with you, annual PDRs are next to pointless and that's why we've replaced them with fortnightly 1-on-1 meetings to make sure that any concerns or difficulties or indeed hidden triumphs are being properly aired and valued.
May 12, 2010 at 8:05 am
A common problem for companies is under-valuing key employees. Performance reviews is one technique for addressing the problem.
People you report to are supposed to make your value known to stakeholders - especially if there could be a mismatch between your value and your incentives. However, we all know the problems with making things objective - and we know that managers are biased and imperfect, and often don't fulfill this need.
So the formal reviews are supposed to mitigate the imperfection, bias and subjectivity of managers. It does that by creating a conversation where the employee, the manager and others all get involved and provide input.
Sure it comes at a cost. But as long as that cost is one dollar less than the cost of retention problems, then it's worth it.
It's also not without trade-offs and can be done poorly. But that's the same with any technique.
Even if I currently report to a manager that I think does a reasonable job assessing and radiating my value up till now, I still prefer not having to rely completely on a single person to perform that important function. Relationships can change.
What can I say? I prefer checks and balances.
--
To those who don't like being "assessed" - I just want to highlight that you're always being assessed either formally or informally. There's no way around it. Your employer has to determine costs and benefits of what they do including keeping a business relationship with you. By all means though, if you think there are problems with the assessments, then surface the problems.
If you've read The Bell Curve, and The Mismeasure of Man, and Neil Postman's Technopoly where he discusses the many absurdities of applying statistics to social matters and so forth, then you're probably versed in the problems of formal assessment. But you should also balance out your view with a meditation on the problems with informal assessment which can get even more subjective, biased, tyrranical and so forth.
In the end, I'm with Steve that I don't "like" i.e. enjoy the process much - but I prefer it over the alternative when it's set up reasonably well.
Bill Nicolich: www.SQLFave.com.
Daily tweet of what's new and interesting: AppendNow
May 12, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Its not that I don't like being assessed, its that I believe its completely useless as a means to measure a person's worth, especially when your manager (and his compatriates in the "Calibration" meeting) can change what your peers score you.
Anyway, I believe a much better idea is to reward ALL the employees who make the company a success. Funnily enough, that would actually be ALL the employees in a company because if you have any issues where a person is actively working against the company, he/she should be fired. If you have a particular issue with *how* an employee works, then you should already have had a 'one on one' with them and put into place a plan to improve that issue. Anything else is just pure bad management.
May 13, 2010 at 6:35 am
Bill Nicolich (5/12/2010)
People you report to are supposed to make your value known to stakeholders.
The key words here being SUPPOSED TO ideally. :w00t: Now, we come back back to the real world.:-D
"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 18, 2010 at 11:26 am
Steve, you scooped the New York Times! Well, this NYT blogger, anyway. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/17/time-to-review-workplace-reviews/?th&emc=th If you look at the comments, you can tell she struck a nerve. It makes me realize how incredibly lucky I've been to always have immediate supervisors that I liked and respected.
Julie
May 18, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Well, I know the editor, so I got to schedule my thoughts early 😉
That's a good summary of some issues. And it covers some of how I feel as someone that gets reviewed. I'd just as soon not have them because of the anxiety.
May 18, 2010 at 1:05 pm
From the HR and employment law point of view, a formal, structured performance review process reduces company exposure to legal complaints by members of protected classes that they were singled out, treated differently, not informed, etc. etc. For 95% of employees, they are often of little value. But for defending against those problem employees inclined to sue over terminations, lack of promotion, or related issues, a structured review system that applies to all is strongly recommended. It is like those annual commitments you have to sign that you adhere to the company ethical practices policies, or the signoff that you have completed your diversity training -- it's 95% CYA for the company. And given the costs of lawsuits, it would be considered irresponsible to shareholders if HR/Legal did not have basic systems in place.
It's really not all about us!
May 18, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Holly Kilpatrick (5/18/2010)
It's really not all about us!
Unfortunately, that's all too true!:hehe:
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/sqlrv
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/sqlrv
Website: http://sqlrv.com
May 18, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Holly,
I think you're right. It's not about us, it's about minor protections for the company, lawyer PIAs and horse droppings rolling downhill.
Viewing 11 posts - 31 through 40 (of 40 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply