Staff appraisal
Poll: Staff appraisal
Total Members Polled: 26
Discussion
Most companies now have formal appraisal processes which are supposed to ensure objectivity. But so many managers seem to agree with objectivity in principle but think they personally can tell from looking at someone how good they are so no need to assess them fairly.
During the recent appraisal round at work I've had three people say something like 'I know what overall grade x should have, but I can't get the individual marks to add up to that'.
There was a case a few years ago when I had a call from a senior manager at a consultancy about 'Jim' who had been working on our site usually as the only person from his firm. Apparently he'd just had an appraisal (which surprised me because nobody asked my opinion and he'd been working for me) and got an 'unsatisfactory' for relationship with client. Jim had protested that the manager that had conducted the appraisal didn't know what was going on and himself suggested that somebody should ring me. I pointed out that I'd just extended Jim's contract because he was more than satisfactory, the phrase I used was 'an asset to the project'.
Next I heard from Jim he was leaving the consultancy. It seemed he'd had a meeting with the two managers where they had agreed to change the 'relationship with client' mark upwards. but had also decided that on reflection some of the other marks needed to be adjusted down so they overall grade was still mediocre.
I've also known people who are widely recognised as not-the-kind-of-person-to-get-promotion due to poor social skills etc, but whose appraisals make absolutely no mention of what everyone knows is an issue. Which I suspect happened to Jim.
Frankly appraisals look like a massive waste of time.
During the recent appraisal round at work I've had three people say something like 'I know what overall grade x should have, but I can't get the individual marks to add up to that'.
There was a case a few years ago when I had a call from a senior manager at a consultancy about 'Jim' who had been working on our site usually as the only person from his firm. Apparently he'd just had an appraisal (which surprised me because nobody asked my opinion and he'd been working for me) and got an 'unsatisfactory' for relationship with client. Jim had protested that the manager that had conducted the appraisal didn't know what was going on and himself suggested that somebody should ring me. I pointed out that I'd just extended Jim's contract because he was more than satisfactory, the phrase I used was 'an asset to the project'.
Next I heard from Jim he was leaving the consultancy. It seemed he'd had a meeting with the two managers where they had agreed to change the 'relationship with client' mark upwards. but had also decided that on reflection some of the other marks needed to be adjusted down so they overall grade was still mediocre.
I've also known people who are widely recognised as not-the-kind-of-person-to-get-promotion due to poor social skills etc, but whose appraisals make absolutely no mention of what everyone knows is an issue. Which I suspect happened to Jim.
Frankly appraisals look like a massive waste of time.
There’s quite a bit of research that’s been done on this subject and iirc the general consensus is that most managers cannot form an accurate, objective impression of a direct report even if it bit then on the arse.
There was even one research project done on salesman, one role where performance can easily be measured. That showed managers ignored the figures and went with a gut feeling of how much they liked the individual and how they ‘felt’ they performed.
Even Microsoft took over 20 years when I was there to create a performance/review program that approached something close(ish) to objectivity and that was nowhere near perfect.
There was even one research project done on salesman, one role where performance can easily be measured. That showed managers ignored the figures and went with a gut feeling of how much they liked the individual and how they ‘felt’ they performed.
Even Microsoft took over 20 years when I was there to create a performance/review program that approached something close(ish) to objectivity and that was nowhere near perfect.
I work for a very large car manufacturer where appraisal grade leads to a pay rise, based on that grade. However if HR have x amount of money for the whole organisation, and the average pay reward is based around everyone getting a 2 ( in a score of 1,2 ,3 from bad to good) then it is a real battle for anyone to get a 3, because that means a larger pay rise, which means it has to be funded by someone else getting a 1. If you get a 1, you are either going to be managed out of the business, or in some cases it is because you are new to the role. This leads to most managers just giving a 2, and a real battle to get a 3, which has to be justified by many 'bigwigs'. To get a 3, you have to demonstrate that you are consistently performing above your pay grade. The parameters of which are laid out in the employee handbook, but will be changed if money is tight. Oh, you also need to get a 3 to get a promotion. On average there are around 5 x3 grades per annum. Which is why 80% of promotion roles go to outside candidates. It's a complete waste of time.
Jerry Can said:
I work for a very large car manufacturer where appraisal grade leads to a pay rise, based on that grade. However if HR have x amount of money for the whole organisation, and the average pay reward is based around everyone getting a 2 ( in a score of 1,2 ,3 from bad to good) then it is a real battle for anyone to get a 3, because that means a larger pay rise, which means it has to be funded by someone else getting a 1.
The place I worked had a similar system which caused grumblings (rightly or wrongly) that the appraisal system was being gamed to improve the gender pay comparison.A difficult question. I tend to do appraisals for my team fairly quickly if I know they are okay. I tend to keep to a number of high level objectives, with specific goals set where I can see more guidance is needed.
One guy was underperforming this year, and having clear goals that he clearly had not completed (despite earlier sessions) meant that while he didn't like it, he could see why his time with us was numbered - as well as having not completed the objectives, he actually admitted that completing them wasn't really the job he wanted to be doing any longer.
Overall more useful and helpful then not having anything to point to.
I do dislike 'calibration' where I have experienced it though. As above it seems to be political, and essentially random - sometimes I will have a strong team, and sometimes less strong. The number of other 'excellents'/'bads' in the team or around the business shouldn't impact an individual's grade, in my opinion.
In one place I remember being told that I really should have a 'C3' (bottom grade - bad performance, bad attitude). Well it was the case that I didn't have anyone like that working for me (only 10 people) - and it felt like I was being bad by stating this.
One guy was underperforming this year, and having clear goals that he clearly had not completed (despite earlier sessions) meant that while he didn't like it, he could see why his time with us was numbered - as well as having not completed the objectives, he actually admitted that completing them wasn't really the job he wanted to be doing any longer.
Overall more useful and helpful then not having anything to point to.
I do dislike 'calibration' where I have experienced it though. As above it seems to be political, and essentially random - sometimes I will have a strong team, and sometimes less strong. The number of other 'excellents'/'bads' in the team or around the business shouldn't impact an individual's grade, in my opinion.
In one place I remember being told that I really should have a 'C3' (bottom grade - bad performance, bad attitude). Well it was the case that I didn't have anyone like that working for me (only 10 people) - and it felt like I was being bad by stating this.
Dr Jekyll said:
Jerry Can said:
I work for a very large car manufacturer where appraisal grade leads to a pay rise, based on that grade. However if HR have x amount of money for the whole organisation, and the average pay reward is based around everyone getting a 2 ( in a score of 1,2 ,3 from bad to good) then it is a real battle for anyone to get a 3, because that means a larger pay rise, which means it has to be funded by someone else getting a 1.
The place I worked had a similar system which caused grumblings (rightly or wrongly) that the appraisal system was being gamed to improve the gender pay comparison.Pushing for a white collar union to ensure the same base pay increase across all levels (below exec) and the bonus purely geared towards individual performance.
The whole traditional appraisal thing is a lie. It's blatantly based on quotas and biases of managers. There is little to no objectivity.
Appraisal should be a year-round thing with actual evidenced feedback. Even then, managers make up scenarios and will claim the absence of feedback about X must mean Y - again because they have biases. It's the old command and control way of working.
I do as much work and extra responsibilities to strengthen my personal capital. Because, statistically speaking, the best way to achieve pay rises is not through stellar appraisals, but by job hopping and strong negotiation. So generally I've put little weight in to appraisals as a tool for building promotion. Promotion is easier by hopping.
My last job offered me a promotion only after I gave them notice that I'd been offered a better job. My manager said my performance had been outstanding but rated me "good" only because of a quota system. Only one person in our department got the highest rating - and that was cos she was doing a senior job for 2 years without the official job title or pay recognition. Well she's a mug, how am I supposed to compete with that? Isn't it funny how a woman in this scenario was happy to stick with low pay for the role for so long because it gave her a pseudo title and power? Anyway, I digress. I left and get paid more in current job, have no manager now (it's a flat structure) and far superior job prospects. My employer didn't care about my appraisals, just my demonstrable skills and experience. The rest was cultural fit .
Appraisal should be a year-round thing with actual evidenced feedback. Even then, managers make up scenarios and will claim the absence of feedback about X must mean Y - again because they have biases. It's the old command and control way of working.
I do as much work and extra responsibilities to strengthen my personal capital. Because, statistically speaking, the best way to achieve pay rises is not through stellar appraisals, but by job hopping and strong negotiation. So generally I've put little weight in to appraisals as a tool for building promotion. Promotion is easier by hopping.
My last job offered me a promotion only after I gave them notice that I'd been offered a better job. My manager said my performance had been outstanding but rated me "good" only because of a quota system. Only one person in our department got the highest rating - and that was cos she was doing a senior job for 2 years without the official job title or pay recognition. Well she's a mug, how am I supposed to compete with that? Isn't it funny how a woman in this scenario was happy to stick with low pay for the role for so long because it gave her a pseudo title and power? Anyway, I digress. I left and get paid more in current job, have no manager now (it's a flat structure) and far superior job prospects. My employer didn't care about my appraisals, just my demonstrable skills and experience. The rest was cultural fit .
That has always been the case, however - and I'm not sure how it will ever be otherwise. You are taking a risk (that the new job might not be what you want, going through another probationary period, you might end up working with tossers), and you have to put the work in to learn how to do the new job in a new company. Of course you will learn from this and improve (overall) compared to sitting stagnant in the same job. So it is not surprising that this approach gets more reward.
Sometimes that is just life. I have a guy working in one of my teams who is really talented and useful, but I have pushed him to the max of what we will pay him for his current role, and there's a big step to a more senior role (and I don't need two of the more senior role - it's already filled). I fully suspect he will move on in the next year - it would be the right decision for him. And I have discussed that with him. Good people do move on, neither employees or employers should be scared about that!
Sometimes that is just life. I have a guy working in one of my teams who is really talented and useful, but I have pushed him to the max of what we will pay him for his current role, and there's a big step to a more senior role (and I don't need two of the more senior role - it's already filled). I fully suspect he will move on in the next year - it would be the right decision for him. And I have discussed that with him. Good people do move on, neither employees or employers should be scared about that!
We’ve just had our annual appraisals.
In my team there were 5 “outstanding”, 2 “Good”, and one “Improvement required”. I think they’re only as useful as the amount of work that people put into them.
Objectives need to be reasonable
Feedback needs to be regular.
Rewards need to be appropriate.
In my team there were 5 “outstanding”, 2 “Good”, and one “Improvement required”. I think they’re only as useful as the amount of work that people put into them.
Objectives need to be reasonable
Feedback needs to be regular.
Rewards need to be appropriate.
As soon as I see the word appraisal my piss starts to simmer. I worked for almost 18 years in a company that had annual appraisals. In all that time I saw no evidence whatsoever of them having any value. I came to the conclusion that companies with more than a certain number of employees must be legally required to have appraisals so they do it to tick the box and adhere to legislation, but aren't in any way committed to getting anything constructive from the process. There was never any follow up or opportunity to hold the process to account. Also, having an annual review is tantamount to starting to row a boat across the Atlantic and waiting a year to check that you're on course. Furthermore, in my experience recognition and promotions go to people who ram their tongues up the arses of the people above them, not the people who work hardest or perform best, so it's all pointless really. The company I currently work for has them too - same generic forms as my previous employer, funnily enough - but after I very publicly posted an article rubbishing appraisals on LinkedIn my looming appraisal seems to have quietly disappeared off the radar. Here's hoping it doesn't reappear.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2018/01/14/pe...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2018/01/14/pe...
Countdown said:
Do people not have their annual bonuses linked to their Appraisals?
I can understand why some people might not care for them but, IME, people consider them a lot more important when it impacts on your pay.
Most people don't have bonus schemes at all. For those that do it tends to be based on corporate performance not individual grades.I can understand why some people might not care for them but, IME, people consider them a lot more important when it impacts on your pay.
Dr Jekyll said:
Most people don't have bonus schemes at all. For those that do it tends to be based on corporate performance not individual grades.
Possibly it varies between industries/job types. My targets tend to be 5 individual/team and 1 corporate. I work in Finance.As suggested above - i think appraisals become far more important when it affects your pay (your annual increase as well as your bonus)
Countdown said:
Do people not have their annual bonuses linked to their Appraisals?
I can understand why some people might not care for them but, IME, people consider them a lot more important when it impacts on your pay.
Mine is linked to bonus. I need to get a "good" rating which in my head is performing averagely, not cocking up and being reasonably "visible." It's not that hard to achieve. Surely one of the main objectives of an appraisal is to support promotion? But they don't do that very well in my view, they're just a tick box by HR to control the workforce. I can understand why some people might not care for them but, IME, people consider them a lot more important when it impacts on your pay.
So you inevitably get the "you've met all your targets and have performed wonderfully...BUT..." And that "but" is where they tell you you're not going up in the organisation regardless of your performance. It's that rather than being honest about a ceiling or limited role availability, or even recognise you ought to probably move on because the organisation can't support you in your ambitions. Those values your CEOs espouse - no not really on the ground.
silent ninja said:
Mine is linked to bonus. I need to get a "good" rating which in my head is performing averagely, not cocking up and being reasonably "visible." It's not that hard to achieve. Surely one of the main objectives of an appraisal is to support promotion? But they don't do that very well in my view, they're just a tick box by HR to control the workforce.
So you inevitably get the "you've met all your targets and have performed wonderfully...BUT..." And that "but" is where they tell you you're not going up in the organisation regardless of your performance. It's that rather than being honest about a ceiling or limited role availability, or even recognise you ought to probably move on because the organisation can't support you in your ambitions. Those values your CEOs espouse - no not really on the ground.
I don't think they could be linked to promotion as they can't offer to promote you if there isn't a vacancy to promote you into.So you inevitably get the "you've met all your targets and have performed wonderfully...BUT..." And that "but" is where they tell you you're not going up in the organisation regardless of your performance. It's that rather than being honest about a ceiling or limited role availability, or even recognise you ought to probably move on because the organisation can't support you in your ambitions. Those values your CEOs espouse - no not really on the ground.
Also (IMHO) the targets need to be nuanced so that they recognize the difference between those who perform averagely and those that go "over and above". I once had an Employee who couldn't understand why she would get "Good" rather than "Outstanding" when she came in, did a decent day's work and went home. There's nothing wrong with that but equally there's nothing wrong with a Company recognising that some people are more valuable to them, and rewarding them appropriately. And appraisals are a useful way of communicating this.
I’ve had appraisals done on me yearly, and it was just a box ticking exercise – I hated them.
When I was doing appraisals on others, it was a 1-to-1 every 4-5 weeks, and sometimes a lot more often if the person had difficulties focusing/ poor priority/planning. Problems were nipped in the bud quickly.
I was told if a manager finds out that a member of their team is leaving, and it comes as a surprise to them, then they are useless manager.
Bonuses? I've had 8 in 26 years, and they were companywide, just 2 were extra for me, and I think it was more "what do we do if this person leaves". I’ve been promoted without anything resembling a pay rise on several occasions. maybe its just me?
When I was doing appraisals on others, it was a 1-to-1 every 4-5 weeks, and sometimes a lot more often if the person had difficulties focusing/ poor priority/planning. Problems were nipped in the bud quickly.
I was told if a manager finds out that a member of their team is leaving, and it comes as a surprise to them, then they are useless manager.
Bonuses? I've had 8 in 26 years, and they were companywide, just 2 were extra for me, and I think it was more "what do we do if this person leaves". I’ve been promoted without anything resembling a pay rise on several occasions. maybe its just me?
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff