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.
That's not the premise of the OP. The question isn't about changing jobs, but about performance reviews. Pay raises are a direct outcome of the performance review. Promotion to higher level jobs and changing jobs, companies, or careers are different outcomes and the performance review has little to do with them.
Sure I could apply to other jobs, but my performance review would have no impact on whether I got that job, nor whether that job was actually a promotion or not (note pay raises are not promotions and promotions fall under applying for other jobs). That's why I asked about your work and work environment. Your comments seem to imply you work in an environment where promotion is a possible direct reward or outcome of the performance review. Many, perhaps even most, don't work in such an environment.
My review is typically a paper I have to sign off on. I'm not sat down or anything, just look through the paper and sign off on it. There was an official meeting this year for our self-assessment though.
Pay raises are a direct outcome of the performance review.
They are, or should be, a direct outcome of performance. I'm not sold on the idea that formal written reviews that, at some companies, consume an entire work day (not counting the time it takes to write reviews of your peers, write reviews of yourself, write out your goals, etc.) of stressful 1-on-1 meetings with superiors, sometimes multiple times per year, are absolutely necessary.
I actually like and look forward to performance reviews. It is a game. The managers think it is going to be a one way conversation where they are telling you how you have done. I don't see it that way, and I will challenge their comments and ask for examples and clarification. I have actually had them go back and change their numbers after we discussed things.
I had one manager who dreaded going into reviews with me because he knew I was going to ask him the tough questions. One time, I simply said, "I agree with the evaluation", and I signed it. He looked relieved and shocked that I didn't want to discuss it further.
Interviews and performance reviews are a two way street. They may be sitting in that chair, but it is my life they are discussing, and I am going to participate and not simply roll over.
Sounds a lot like me...
I welcome the opportunity for exchange.
In 25 years I have had 3 reviews... by the time the process gets to me the year is over or it simply drops off the radar.
My current Hospital Admin and I were peers for many years... it was expected that I would ask the hard questions at the annual meeting... and the Admin was a huge supportor of this saying I ask what everyone is thinking but afraid to voice.
Thing is now this person is the boss and worries about what I might ask... even has said such.
This year I have prepared my own review and will have it at the ready as reviews are mandatory... without exception.
With new ownership the culture change has been dramatic... we were encouraged to own the job and think of the Hospital as our Hospital and taking care of the patient was job one across all lines.
Now, not so much so... breaks, meal breaks are paramount... we did not clock out for meal break and most just grabbed something on the fly... now you will be reprimand unless 30 minutes meal break is recorded within 5 hours of shift start... it has many focused on rules instead of serving are patients.
We now also provide center feedback online which is collated by each site... apparently the feedback from our facility was noticed all the way to the top of Corp... as a group we have lost our cohesiveness and not my job or I'm on break are words once never spoken and have become routine...
Last edited by Ultrarunner; 11-05-2017 at 09:14 AM..
Wher I work, we have an annual review that determines if you get a raise and what your bonus credit will be. Then there is a midterm. Then there is a development dialogue. Then there is a weekly 1:1.
My employer reviews based on a bell curve, which means someone always has to be the goat. I don't know why companies do this, but I think it is common. It seems to me that a good manager knows how to hire good people. The idea that there always is a deadbeat in every department is destructive and a demotivating force.
They are, or should be, a direct outcome of performance. I'm not sold on the idea that formal written reviews that, at some companies, consume an entire work day (not counting the time it takes to write reviews of your peers, write reviews of yourself, write out your goals, etc.) of stressful 1-on-1 meetings with superiors, sometimes multiple times per year, are absolutely necessary.
Konald - I think we might work at the same place. Do you work in tech by any chance?
Wher I work, we have an annual review that determines if you get a raise and what your bonus credit will be. Then there is a midterm. Then there is a development dialogue. Then there is a weekly 1:1.
My employer reviews based on a bell curve, which means someone always has to be the goat. I don't know why companies do this, but I think it is common. It seems to me that a good manager knows how to hire good people. The idea that there always is a deadbeat in every department is destructive and a demotivating force.
I think it shouldn't be based on a Bell Curve at all. Not everything should be a normal distribution at all. Scores whether on a test or a performance evaluation shouldn't be. Why because they don't fit. There might be bad employees but there aren't always. Why do companies do this?
The OR and PACU managers are in the loop and disseminate to their staff...
If you work in Central, Housekeeping, Business Office, Engineering, Security, etc... you are out of the loop and always plying catch up...
It would seem a weekly 1 on 1 or pay period contact would be a good way to go...
At one time all important information was included with your pay check... now it is online and many outside the nursing staff have little to no online access...
Haha true story. A couple years ago, my company instituted the employee self review system. Everything was a scored from 1 to 5, 1 being worst and 5 being best. A week after the deadline and we all have submitted, we got an email from corporate saying no one could put 5 down because it was suppose to be impossible or something like that. So everyone had to revise.
Thank goodness they did away with that stupid system the following year.
Then when they see too many 4's, you will get an e-mail that 4 or 5 are disallowed on self-reviews? Sounds like a silly system. Was the concept of self-reviews thought up because they did not have the resources or know how to coordinate a better review system?
Performance reviews are an HR and people-management tool, nothing more than that.
They are mandatory in most companies for a variety of reasons, but have become status quo for large organizations.
In the last decade also, there has been an increasing trend of remote employees - and because so much of the work and management is virtual, its harder for managers to be accountable for their workforce. Performance reviews provide a framework for that, and more.
I think quarterly is too frequently, but it really depends on the needs of the business.
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.
