82,891
edits
Performance appraisal: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Inevitably it is decreed: ''this'' year there will be no deadline extensions; ''this'' year it will be simple; ''this'' year the system will not freeze or fail to save your work when it unexpectedly crashes at fifteen minutes to midnight on the deadline for submission — a deadline which contracts with every year that passes. | Inevitably it is decreed: ''this'' year there will be no deadline extensions; ''this'' year it will be simple; ''this'' year the system will not freeze or fail to save your work when it unexpectedly crashes at fifteen minutes to midnight on the deadline for submission — a deadline which contracts with every year that passes. | ||
Each year, defiant non-compliance and massive IT malfunction ensure it will be otherwise. The scope of the [[360]] | Each year, defiant non-compliance and massive IT malfunction ensure it will be otherwise. The scope of the [[360]] — how extensive; how frequent; how in-depth — is a good measure of how captive a firm is to its [[HR department]]. It might be fun to chart aggregate time invested in the 360 process against share price. | ||
No-one doubts the [[360]] is well intended. So was Neville Chamberlain in Munich. By polling those with whom an employee has most closely worked regardless of rank, department or disposition, it is meant to provide a comprehensive and unbiased analysis of each employee’s contribution to the firm’s performance. | No-one doubts the [[360]] is well-intended. So was Neville Chamberlain in Munich. By polling those with whom an [[employee]] has most closely worked regardless of rank, department or disposition, it is meant to provide a comprehensive and unbiased analysis of each employee’s contribution to the firm’s performance. | ||
Scoring is numeric against standardised criteria: i.e., multi-choice. Since marks out of five fail to provide a script for the awkward half hour “[[performance conversation]]” one | Scoring is numeric, against standardised criteria: i.e., multi-choice. Since marks out of five fail to provide a script for the awkward half-hour “[[performance conversation]]” one must conduct months after the process completes, appraisers have to compose prose evaluations as well. Even the most public-spirited employee will find this trying. | ||
Reducing matters to [[force-ranking|statistical analysis which can be fitted to a normal distribution]] is, of course, the sort of thing that aspiring [[management consultant]]s adore, dispensing as it does with any need to understand the [[Substance and form|fundamentals]] of the business. Everyone else thinks it is lunacy. If an employee’s contribution really can be reduced to a percentage, the open question is ''why have the employee at all?'' | Reducing matters to [[force-ranking|statistical analysis which can be fitted to a normal distribution]] is, of course, the sort of thing that aspiring [[management consultant]]s adore, dispensing as it does with any need to understand the [[Substance and form|fundamentals]] of the business. Everyone else thinks it is lunacy. If an employee’s contribution really can be reduced to a percentage, the open question is ''why have the employee at all?'' | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
And that, a [[management consultant]] might say, is exactly the point. | And that, a [[management consultant]] might say, is exactly the point. | ||
Nonetheless, the [[360]] is wide open to abuse. Unless {{sex|he}} is uncommonly stupid, | Nonetheless, the [[360]] is wide-open to abuse. Unless {{sex|he}} is uncommonly stupid, no employee will nominate anyone with whom he hasn ot already sealed a pact for mutually-assured admiration. | ||
To correct this bias, some systems allow “unsolicited anonymous feedback”. But bitter indeed is {{sex|she}} who goes out of her way to torpedo a colleague who has at least done her the favour of ''not'' requesting an appraisal. Bitter, and short of better things to do. Most appraisers have trouble summoning the will to appraise those whom they ''do'' have to evaluate without volunteering to character assassinate those they don’t. | To correct this bias, some systems allow “unsolicited anonymous feedback”. But bitter indeed is {{sex|she}} who goes out of her way to torpedo a colleague who has at least done her the favour of ''not'' requesting an appraisal. Bitter, and short of better things to do. Most appraisers have trouble summoning the will to appraise those whom they ''do'' have to evaluate without volunteering to character assassinate those they don’t. | ||