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.
We were asked to honestly evaluate each other's effectiveness and give him the report with two weeks. There are 10 engineers so we will have to evaluate the other 9. I have no idea why this is needed since everyone pretty much know each other well. Eventhough he is new, he has been in the company for a long time. He is non technical. What should I do, tell the truth? That means reporting of people who are not effective, or disengaged? Or only focus on the positive aspects of each engineer?
only focus on the positive aspects of each engineer?
This type of exercise is wrong on a number of levels. It's the supervisor's job to do evaluations. I'd refuse to go along on this one, probably passively: "Oh, yes. I'm thinking about it . . . " or "I don't know what to write. I'm a _______________ (programmer, bug tester, whatever), not a PM."
Here's my rule: I never write anything negative about a co-worker that I can't fully document, period. Too bad if anyone has a problem with that. I'm not opening myself up to a lawsuit.
And I told that to a mouthy supervisor one time who was fired soon after, so I'm really glad that I never wrote anything down. It would have added to the drama. I'm glad that shop went bankrupt soon after all that.
We were asked to honestly evaluate each other's effectiveness and give him the report with two weeks. There are 10 engineers so we will have to evaluate the other 9. I have no idea why this is needed since everyone pretty much know each other well. Eventhough he is new, he has been in the company for a long time. He is non technical. What should I do, tell the truth? That means reporting of people who are not effective, or disengaged? Or only focus on the positive aspects of each engineer?
All of you could perhaps write something like:
I personally know the details of my specific position and I am unable to comment on the specifics in regards to the duties required and performed by others.
I see this too often. People working outside their job classifications and the companies just sit their on their arses and let it happen. More and more people are doing things UNRELATED to their job descriptions than they are doing their job. Its ridiculous.
I would respond, "I'll evaluate other teammates if you give me the pay that goes along with it"
I'm not sure that this is a sign that he's lazy, because if you think about it, if they all do it this manager will need to read through 90 evaluations. I'd never want to do that.
I'm wondering if he thinks this is some sort of avant garde way of learning the dynamics of the team without taking the time to observe it himself. He may also be using this as a tool to evaluate OP and his coworkers based on how they handle the assignment.
With that said, I personally do not like the 360 degree concept. A manager doing reviews has a vested interest in reviewing his own people fairly and accurately. Others do not. Subordinates reviewing their manager may fear repercussions or seek to curry favor. For everyone else, it's a popularity contest. Friends get glowing reviews while rivals get trashed.
The worst manager (actually a director) I ever reported to tried to unilaterally implemented his idea of 360 degree reviews one year. But he handpicked who he asked to review who, cherry-picking combinations where he knew there had been conflicts. When he started the process he claimed it would have no impact on our annual evaluations, which of course was not true. He did it one year and HR told him to knock it off.
My current company allowed Peer reviews on a limited scale in the past and it's thought of unofficially as a mutual admiration society kind of thing. Say nice things about the peer you're asked to review, because your turn could be next. Again, ineffective. I don't know if it will continue, as last year we skipped the formal evaluation process entirely (but still got raises) and everyone thought that was a gift from the heavens. Managers hate writing and giving them just as much as everyone hates getting them. Maybe more. We don't know yet if that will continue in the future or not.
OP is in a tough spot. Refusing to do this, especially in a sarcastic manner ("when I get the pay...", "that's not my job...", etc) could be considered insubordination. He could inquire with HR to see if this is sanctioned by them but I'd tread very lightly there as that could easily paint a target on his back. As distasteful as this may be, I think if it was me I would write brief, slightly positive comments ("Frank is a dedicated employee who is always helpful") about all the other team members unless there is one who is clearly known to be not cutting it and in that case write neutral or very slightly critical but accurate comments ("Joe could use some assistance learning the XYZ procedure"). Do not write the same things about everyone, mix it up a bit. If he didn't specify how long these reviews need to be or give specific criteria for rating, keep it short and sweet, maybe even just a sentence or two about each person.
Last edited by johnp292; 11-28-2015 at 07:44 AM..
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.
