Do you do a self appraisal as part of the Performance Evaluation process? (work, company)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How sad that so many people work in companies that ask them to do a self appraisal and set goals but their actual boss ignores them. To me the system is great if the employee's manager takes it seriously.
As a former manager who wrote many performance evaluations, and also received many over the years, here's what I think of self assessments:
They are useful because they help the employee understand the relationship between their written job standards and the work they actually do every day. When you have to start writing how you met the "Communication Standards" element, you start to realize how your daily written and verbal communications, presentations you gave, and training you conducted fit into your annual evaluation.
It also reminds the employee to keep notes on special things they do, or occasions when they went above and beyond, because the manager may not know. My employees were located in 10 different cities all over the eastern coast. I definitely didn't know about every time they did something above and beyond, or each time they came up a creative solution to a problem.
One bad aspect of a self assessment is that it will give a lazy manager a way to pull together the annual assessment without paying much attention to the employee all year. I had one spectacularly bad manager during my career, and most of the annual evals I got from him were basically my own self assessments with some sentences rearranged.
The whole process is a waste of time. I have found that your manager already has an opinion about your performance that is almost impossible to change. All the self appraisals and everything you write in the Performance review is really not read by anyone in the normal course of business. All that matters really is what your manager writes and the rating that you get. That is why I try to write as little as possible so that I minimize the waste of time.
We do it here too. It is difficult, because I know how I did, but not how others do. I am rating myself in a vacuum...at least that's how I feel. Also, I find it extremely difficult to get my boss to change my rating. He already has his mind set, and if he changes my rating, it will affect all others in my department...e.g. If I go up, someone else must come down. We all can't be superstars. Kid of dumb, but it can lead to good conversations.
An utter and complete waste of time, indicative of little other than the amount of spare time mid-managers actually have on their hands.
Think outside the box, everyone. Okay, time's up. Now get back in your box.
Rinse and repeat. For forty years.
This would be true if evaluations are "mid-managers" ideas. In fact, this executive feels they are a waste of time. The reality is that it's nothing more than a liability-management tool disguised as an assistance to help measure one's performance. From an HR stand point, it's a necessary evil to justify promotions (or the denial of one), merit increases, and terminations.
Yes, it can be useful for staff to gauge how they are doing. But if they really wanted to do that, you don't need a formal process set by the company. You can do that "informally" by going up to your manager and set something up. Which is what I encourage my staff to do (and what I do with everyone I've worked with/for).
In the end, what ends up happening is that the evaluations become a waste of time rehashing what we already have discussed throughout the year.
And some waste more than others. I worked at a mgmt consulting firm. And the #1 reason many state as their reason for leaving is the evaluation process. As a staff, you need to create a self assessment. And they tailor it to the company's core values. So you need statements "demonstrating" your integrity, honesty, etc. Yea, you essentially need to document why you were a decent human last year.
And it gets even worse if you are a manager. Not only do you need to write the assessment, but you also need to get your staff's self assessment, as well as conducting a 360 review. Meaning you need to solicit feedback from peers, clients, other managers, etc.
But you're not done yet. You then need to present the evaluation in front of your principal. You will also need to fight for your staff's raise. There'a an accountant in the room that you negotiate with. Essentially, it becomes a competition between your staff and other's that are having their assessment presented for the pot of money that is being made available for the raises.
So - working there, you spend probably 20% of your time on evaluations. Either completing your own self-assessment, formulating your staff's, or providing feedback for a peer. Oh, and none of that is billable. Meaning this is expected of you outside of your mandatory 40 billable hours a week.
The people who are against a formal performance evaluation system with goal settling, performance standards, self appraisal and a formal sit down between the manager and the employee to discuss all of this- ARE LIVING IN THEIR OWN WORLD!
Sure, in a perfect world the manager and the employee would sit down on a regular basis for informal discussions about performance and the manager would know if there was a disconnect between how the employee saw their performance and the manager viewed it. Also in this perfect world the employee and the manager would have sat down and determined what the standards for performance were, so the employee would know what is important and what is not.
BUT WE DON'T LIVE IN THAT PERFECT WORLD!
The formal performance evaluation program I described is needed because without a formal process, MOST MANAGERS would not manage their staff effectively. And never tell them when they were doing well and when they were not.
I find many companies use this type of evaluation in some shape or form. I've been through many types of self-evals and have found them to be a ridiculous waste of time because the majority of people using them don't use them as intended, including primarily the reviewer. They all included five levels of competency, with the highest being one never awarded. We were told the highest is never awarded, so my question is, if that high level was not awarded and not attainable, why bother including it? What I also found disturbing was the boss reaching out to others in the organization with whom you worked to obtain their feedback, but if given unfavorable feedback, you had no recourse to refute or provide a rebuttal. Thankfully I was never the recipient of negative feedback, but there were others sin the organization who were, mainly due to office politics.
I don't mind it. I think that some managers take them serious, some do not. It is a tool, just like anything else.
My boss works 500 miles away, so, I only see her a few times a year at most. It is a good chance for me to let her know other things that I have worked on or done that she may not know about otherwise.
This year, I rated myself lower than she did, as I was relatively new to the role, so, that was a pleasant surprise.
I find many companies use this type of evaluation in some shape or form. I've been through many types of self-evals and have found them to be a ridiculous waste of time because the majority of people using them don't use them as intended, including primarily the reviewer. They all included five levels of competency, with the highest being one never awarded. We were told the highest is never awarded, so my question is, if that high level was not awarded and not attainable, why bother including it? What I also found disturbing was the boss reaching out to others in the organization with whom you worked to obtain their feedback, but if given unfavorable feedback, you had no recourse to refute or provide a rebuttal. Thankfully I was never the recipient of negative feedback, but there were others sin the organization who were, mainly due to office politics.
For ours, we get to choose who gives feedback. We have to select a certain number of people in different roles to give feedback. That way, you know who it comes from. They may solicit it from your peers or a higher up, but, you do get to choose who you get it from. Most people try to do it from friends or people they get along with, I try to get it from people I worked on projects with. A few times, I have asked for feedback from people that I did NOT get along with.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
