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.
During my last performance review, I reviewed myself as a 5/5 in every category because of what I viewed as an exceptional year in terms of performance. I was subsequently given a 3/5 ("Successful Performance") and was instructed that, while I did a great job, 4 or 5s were reserved for truly exceptional performance and difficult to receive. Is this a bad sign in terms of how performance is evaluated? I don't understand the disconnect.
This stuff sucks! I hate working for other people. If I was the one hiring, giving reviews etc. I would not mis-treat people. You have to incentivize and reward your employees for a job well done. It should be tied to team work so that if the company wins every day or every quarter then everyone on the team should benefit not just the few at the top in the C suite. On the other hand if someone isn't doing well there has to be a well thought=out and fair process designed to actually lift them up and if that isn't possible to give them every chance to turn it around and if it isn't working out then to be put on a 30 or 60 day "action plan" which really in my experience is fair warning to start looking for a new job.
I worked in the legal group for one of the largest software & consulting companies in the world. One year I saved them millions of dollars by streamlining operations and even then, a 4/5 rating was as high as I got. I was told that most people get 3/5 and that was considered good, or equal with my peer group.
It's good that the OP believes they did a better job than the rating they got, but some companies use a criteria that makes it impossible to get the best one. For me it was about the money. If the bonus was good, then I didn't care what the rating was. A 3/5 in a good year was worth more than a 4/5 in a bad year, financially speaking.
This is the monster that HR has created. You are no longer reviewed on the quality of your own work, but instead you are compared to a peer average system. The system is designed in such a way that x number of people have to fall into certain categories. When I was laid off I was the fall guy since I had been with the company for the least amount of time. "Someone" had to receive a 0 performance, most had to receive meets expectations, and someone had to get superior. I was the 0 even though I had documented evidence of my accomplishments AND two awards for outstanding performance. HR never replied to my email.
In most companies, managers have to abide by this distribution curve. You may be a 5, but if there are too many 5's, you may not be the 5 of 5's.
Realistically, shouldn't performance fall within this distribution? We've created a culture where everyone gets a trophy, and are reaping the results - over inflated performance appraisals. The problem is that it makes it impossible to distinguish truly exceptional performance.
Realistically, shouldn't performance fall within this distribution? We've created a culture where everyone gets a trophy, and are reaping the results - over inflated performance appraisals. The problem is that it makes it impossible to distinguish truly exceptional performance.
No, under this current model the manager is forced to assign what is essentially a C grade to a certain number of employees, regardless of performance. Say you have a team of 5 people and all 5 have gone above and beyond this year helping you with a key project, you have to give 3 of them a 3/5, 1 of them a 4, and 1 of them a 2/5. Good luck getting HR to approve a 5/5
No, under this current model the manager is forced to assign what is essentially a C grade to a certain number of employees, regardless of performance. Say you have a team of 5 people and all 5 have gone above and beyond this year helping you with a key project, you have to give 3 of them a 3/5, 1 of them a 4, and 1 of them a 2/5. Good luck getting HR to approve a 5/5
Well, more like three 3's, one 4, and one 5.
It forces you to scrutinize and rank the team members. In this case, it doesn't mean the 3's aren't good, it just means two others are better.
Realistically, shouldn't performance fall within this distribution? We've created a culture where everyone gets a trophy, and are reaping the results - over inflated performance appraisals. The problem is that it makes it impossible to distinguish truly exceptional performance.
This. The majority of people are average. That's what average means. You've got to think of a bell curve, and odds are you're in the middle-ish area.
In my experience, it's the former straight-A students who typically equate a 3/5 with a C, and subsequently get upset. YMMV.
If an employee rates themselves a 4 or 5, I ask for a list of their accomplishments and how they "exceeded" expectations/objectives. More often than not, the answer is that they just "feel" like they earned a 4 or 5. No, if you actually earned a 4 or 5, you could rattle off a very long list of factual, concrete accomplishments against which HR could not possibly push back.
This. The majority of people are average. That's what average means. You've got to think of a bell curve, and odds are you're in the middle-ish area.
In my experience, it's the former straight-A students who typically equate a 3/5 with a C, and subsequently get upset. YMMV.
If an employee rates themselves a 4 or 5, I ask for a list of their accomplishments and how they "exceeded" expectations/objectives. More often than not, the answer is that they just "feel" like they earned a 4 or 5. No, if you actually earned a 4 or 5, you could rattle off a very long list of factual, concrete accomplishments against which HR could not possibly push back.
HR? The review process is with the supervisor, employee and the supervisor's boss. I don't know what type of industry or work you are referring to, but I don't see HR in the loop at all.
I try not to hire sub-average people and I try not to lose good ones. If you've got a distribution that mirrors the general populace, you should ask yourself why.
Well, more like three 3's, one 4, and one 5.
It forces you to scrutinize and rank the team members. In this case, it doesn't mean the 3's aren't good, it just means two others are better.
I once pointed out to my manager that using that criteria it would be more beneficial to be the least incompetent idiot on a team of idiots than a productive member of a great team. You put together a team of the 5 best software developers from each of Google, Microsoft, IBM and Apple. Literally everyone on your team is better than 99.9% of all developers in the world and would be a superstar at any company. Yet when you rank them, one is a 5, three are 4s, twelve are 3s, three are 2s and one is a 1? It's insane.
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.
