Posted: 1/14/2005 4:36:29 AM EDT
|
Does anyone else have to do this as part of the yearly review process? Our Director sent us a spreadsheet with a column containing the employee's name, a column labeled "Strengths", and a column labeled "Weaknesses". He asked us to fill it out so that he could use it during the review process "since he did not know us all that well". Note: The director is acting as our interim manager since our original manager moved to a different position in the corp. I just sent an email refusing to assess my peer's weaknesses. I figure this is not my job to negatively "assess" my fellow employees during review time. Anyone else have a problem with this practice? |
| I've had to do this quite often in my previous job. I’ve had to review others that way and have been review that way myself. To me, it seemed like nothing but a popularity contest. The results are supposed to be “confidential”, but I was able to figure out who almost everyone was by the types of comments they made or by their writing style. If you write a negative comment about someone, they will find out and will then write negative comments about you on your review. It’s a never-ending cycle and it just turns into a big pissing contest. |
It's usually called 360 degree feedback. If it's done right with "canned " comments like a pulldown menu being the only choices and confientiality being strict it can be a good thing. If it's the only thing that the manager looks at then it's just a popularity contest though. The intent is to get away from the "teacher's pet" mentality for evaluations and see what co-workers think. |
|
Here is the part that gets me:
Nice. |
|
Another failed experiment by activist HR departments. This falls into the same category as rating yourself. I always rate myself with the highest scores possible and back it up with a flowery description made up of buzzwords and platitudes; what the hell do they expect? |
|
We had this at my place of employment. They did away with it a couple of years back. I personally think that they ditched it because it prevented the supervisors from promoting thier pets and relatives of their peers. The company says otherwise of course! Evaluations were a drag for the most part, but occaisionally there was a pissant that needed stepped on. I can think of one person I'd like to evaluate right now, oh well. Don in Ohio |
|
We do this at work. I always change the header from weakenesses to "Opportunities for Development".. Say, for example, someone has horrible management skills. Instead of bluntly saying, they suck at management, I simply state something along the lines of "this is a great growth opportunity and I highly recommend management training to get this individual on the right path". |
|
Just remember that if you praise someone and they badmouth you, whatever negative things they say about you will have that much more credibility. Don't say anything positive about anybody unless you're CERTAIN they will return the favor. Otherwise be neutral to negative in your comments. But don't overplay your hand either. Being too aggressive in your criticism of others will undermine your position. Then it becomes easy to marginalize you as someone with an axe to grind. Always appear reluctant to go negative. It's a fine line. The PR process sucks. |
|
Depends on the type of work you are in. I work for a major consulting firm and we do "360 degree reviews" which consist of input from: - Staff junior to you - Peers - Staff senior to you - Your boss - Your clients - Your self-assessment See? You don't have it so bad! CWO |