Employee Reviews Are Such A Waste Of Time

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: jbourne77
We're conducting employee reviews over the next few weeks, and it's such a waste of time. This year, supervisors and managers must first run all of our reviews by our corresponding Vice President. Why? So they can make sure we don't say anything that can be construed as negative.

Come again Mae West?

That's right, folks. You can no longer ascertain your superior's view of you by the number and contents of positive and negative remarks on your review. No. Instead, you determine his/her satisfaction with you by merely comparing how many positive comments you received relative to your coworkers.

J-tap-dancing-C.

We're literally being told to spin any negative comments into something positive.

For instance:

Original Doesn't collaborate well with others; doesn't take constructive criticism in a positive manner.
Dilbertification Is very passionate about his/her ideas.

How is that helpful? How does that teach Joe Cockblow to stop being a dickhead and play nice? If anything, it reinforces his behavior!

Original Routinely misses project milestones and deadlines and often fails to see the big picture.
Dilbertification Extremely detail-oriented.

Original Isn't adequately keeping up with changes in technologies and methodologies.
Dilbertification Pro-actively supporting legacy systems.

Yes folks, these are ACTUAL line items and their associated "recommendations" from the executive staff. One of them is from a review I'm giving to a very counterproductive member of my team. I need him to "get the message" so he stops acting like such a roadblock. Unfortunately, he's going to walk away from his review feeling as if his performance is not only adequate, but that it's highly appreciated!

Your company will have a very hard time showing a paper trail as jusitification for a firing.

You had better recommend that you never fire a pregnant woman or any other protected class.

Firing != Laying off

yeah, thats what i was thinking also.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: jbourne77
I don't think you do . I don't work in HR so I don't have all of the details, but you don't need the same kind of justifications during layoffs that you do for a standard firing. I'm not saying companies can just go and lay someone off whenever they really just want to fire them, but the two are not quite the same. In an over-simplified nutshell, the only justification you need for laying someone off is that you need to cut costs. You don't need cause.

But I'm not talking about layoffs, I'm talking about firings. Performance reviews of the sort you describe hamstring your company's ability to fire people because the paper trail doesn't reflect bad performance.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: mugs
I hate the phrase "the pussification of America," especially when it doesn't apply. Can't we call it "the pussification of jbourne77's company" instead? I think that's a more accurate description.

I disagree. I think the PoA is all around us in this country. It started with our children (specifically, in the public school system), and now we're beginning to find that even grown adults cannot handle the rigors of every day life.

This is akin to that whole debacle over whether or not teachers should use red ink to grade papers because it's seen as a "negative" color.

Apparently adults can't handle a little red ink, either.

Pussies.

Yes well none of the companies I've worked for had a problem with telling someone what they were doing wrong, so I stand by my previous post.

Wow. Two whole companies? Statistically, I couldn't possibly argue with that!

/ troll

I had a feeling you'd come back with something like that. But of course there is nothing wrong with taking your experience with one company and applying it to the entire country?

:roll: / idiot

 

[slackerinabox]

Hate the "pussification of America?" Move to France, you friggin whiny c*nt.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: jbourne77
I don't think you do . I don't work in HR so I don't have all of the details, but you don't need the same kind of justifications during layoffs that you do for a standard firing. I'm not saying companies can just go and lay someone off whenever they really just want to fire them, but the two are not quite the same. In an over-simplified nutshell, the only justification you need for laying someone off is that you need to cut costs. You don't need cause.

But I'm not talking about layoffs, I'm talking about firings. Performance reviews of the sort you describe hamstring your company's ability to fire people because the paper trail doesn't reflect bad performance.

I see your point... however, at most companies, they will treat the firing process VERY formally. They usually have a defined process for firing that goes something like this:

Step 1: Verbal warning (undocumented)
Step 2: Verbal warning (may or may not be documented)
Step 3: Verbal warning (documented)
Step 4: Written warning (documented and signed by employee, supervisor, and HR)
Steps 5 & 6: Same as step 4
Step 7: Fired

It's a generalization, but it usually takes a form similar to that. This is all outside of the review process. Even if you got a glowing review, if this all goes down before your next one, then that review doesn't mean anything. If a review is coming up and the company is positioning itself to fire you, then you're certainly not going to get a good one, even at my company.

And that brings up a key point: the decision to fire someone is typically a very, very involved one. It's not a spur of the moment kind of thing. If a company intends to let you go, they're going to take their time, get their ducks in order, and circle the wagons. They're definitely not going to let themselves get caught off guard by some petty employee appraisal.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: mugs
I hate the phrase "the pussification of America," especially when it doesn't apply. Can't we call it "the pussification of jbourne77's company" instead? I think that's a more accurate description.

I disagree. I think the PoA is all around us in this country. It started with our children (specifically, in the public school system), and now we're beginning to find that even grown adults cannot handle the rigors of every day life.

This is akin to that whole debacle over whether or not teachers should use red ink to grade papers because it's seen as a "negative" color.

Apparently adults can't handle a little red ink, either.

Pussies.

Yes well none of the companies I've worked for had a problem with telling someone what they were doing wrong, so I stand by my previous post.

Wow. Two whole companies? Statistically, I couldn't possibly argue with that!

/ troll

I had a feeling you'd come back with something like that. But of course there is nothing wrong with taking your experience with one company and applying it to the entire country?

:roll: / idiot

I've been involved in the hiring process (permanent employees as well as consultants) for about 5 years now (at several companies), and rather formally at this one for the last year. On a very frequent basis, I speak with HR departments across the country. I'm intimately familiar with what they're willing to divulge about former employees and what they're not willing to divulge, and more importantly, I know why. Occasionally, a prospect will even bring their past reviews along with their resume. Also, my wife works for a law firm. While she is only involved in probate law, a large portion of the firm's income comes from what many of us would consider rather frivolous lawsuits: personal injury, disgruntled employees/ex-employees, etc.

So, while I would certainly not say that I'm an expert on the review process of companies across America, I'm certainly qualified to state that my company is hardly an exception. Furthermore, the motives are rather obvious, and they're quite analogous to other issues which are widely regarded as an indication of an overly sensitive and sue-happy population.

Of course, all of this because you didn't like the phrase "Pussification of America". Hence, the troll remark (which I stand by).

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

I've been involved in the hiring process (permanent employees as well as consultants) for about 5 years now (at several companies), and rather formally at this one for the last year. On a very frequent basis, I speak with HR departments across the country. I'm intimately familiar with what they're willing to divulge about former employees and what they're not willing to divulge, and more importantly, I know why. Occasionally, a prospect will even bring their past reviews along with their resume. Also, my wife works for a law firm. While she is only involved in probate law, a large portion of the firm's income comes from what many of us would consider rather frivolous lawsuits: personal injury, disgruntled employees/ex-employees, etc.

So, while I would certainly not say that I'm an expert on the review process of companies across America, I'm certainly qualified to state that my company is hardly an exception. Furthermore, the motives are rather obvious, and they're quite analogous to other issues which are widely regarded as an indication of an overly sensitive and sue-happy population.

What a company is willing to tell another company about a past employee and what a company is willing to tell their own employees are related how? Someone could sue over the former, while the latter could be used in DEFENSE in a lawsuit. i.e. if a member of a protected class sues because they got a smaller raise than a white guy. Of course that wouldn't happen at your company where raises aren't based on merit, so it seems to me like the positive reviews are more about employee morale (which is probably pretty low based on your posts in this thread).

Speaking of raises based on merit, you need look no further than any thread on ATOT about raises to see that the practices of your company are NOT typical across the country.

Of course, all of this because you didn't like the phrase "Pussification of America". Hence, the troll remark (which I stand by).

No, it is because I hate when it is misapplied as you have done.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: mugs
I hate the phrase "the pussification of America," especially when it doesn't apply. Can't we call it "the pussification of jbourne77's company" instead? I think that's a more accurate description.

I disagree. I think the PoA is all around us in this country. It started with our children (specifically, in the public school system), and now we're beginning to find that even grown adults cannot handle the rigors of every day life.

This is akin to that whole debacle over whether or not teachers should use red ink to grade papers because it's seen as a "negative" color.

Apparently adults can't handle a little red ink, either.

Pussies.

Yes well none of the companies I've worked for had a problem with telling someone what they were doing wrong, so I stand by my previous post.

Wow. Two whole companies? Statistically, I couldn't possibly argue with that!

/ troll

I had a feeling you'd come back with something like that. But of course there is nothing wrong with taking your experience with one company and applying it to the entire country?

:roll: / idiot

I've been involved in the hiring process (permanent employees as well as consultants) for about 5 years now (at several companies), and rather formally at this one for the last year. On a very frequent basis, I speak with HR departments across the country. I'm intimately familiar with what they're willing to divulge about former employees and what they're not willing to divulge, and more importantly, I know why. Occasionally, a prospect will even bring their past reviews along with their resume. Also, my wife works for a law firm. While she is only involved in probate law, a large portion of the firm's income comes from what many of us would consider rather frivolous lawsuits: personal injury, disgruntled employees/ex-employees, etc.

So, while I would certainly not say that I'm an expert on the review process of companies across America, I'm certainly qualified to state that my company is hardly an exception. Furthermore, the motives are rather obvious, and they're quite analogous to other issues which are widely regarded as an indication of an overly sensitive and sue-happy population.

Of course, all of this because you didn't like the phrase "Pussification of America". Hence, the troll remark (which I stand by).

America has become Pussified in nearly all areas of life.

 

[pnad]

Most reviews are both written and verbal yes? So, write the weak ass happy happy daisy review but blast the lazy ****** in the verbal. If the dope continues to screw up, go with the written warnings mentioned earlier.

I thought 'at will' employment meant that my company can fire me at anytime for just about any reason they can imagine except of course age, sex, race etc.

There is usually some sort of policy to nail them on. I have seen time and attendance used a few times to remove a 'problem' employee.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: mugs
No, it is because I hate when it is misapplied as you have done.

Well hopefully you'll be able to get through this traumatic event in your life.



(not misapplied; just a new context)

 

[Jack Ryan]

I am going to have to agree with jbourne on this one. For the people that work in actual corporations will agree that the OP is right on. The corporation I work for has the same nonsense. Performance appraisals are basically a joke. For us, it is all "fudged" to meet certain requirements anyway.

 

[J Heartless Slick]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: mugs
I hate the phrase "the pussification of America," especially when it doesn't apply. Can't we call it "the pussification of jbourne77's company" instead? I think that's a more accurate description.

I disagree. I think the PoA is all around us in this country. It started with our children (specifically, in the public school system), and now we're beginning to find that even grown adults cannot handle the rigors of every day life.

This is akin to that whole debacle over whether or not teachers should use red ink to grade papers because it's seen as a "negative" color.

Apparently adults can't handle a little red ink, either.




Pussies.

If you were world dictator with unlimited powers how would you want things to be done?

 

[sswingle]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: mugs
I hate the phrase "the pussification of America," especially when it doesn't apply. Can't we call it "the pussification of jbourne77's company" instead? I think that's a more accurate description.

I disagree. I think the PoA is all around us in this country. It started with our children (specifically, in the public school system), and now we're beginning to find that even grown adults cannot handle the rigors of every day life.

This is akin to that whole debacle over whether or not teachers should use red ink to grade papers because it's seen as a "negative" color.

Apparently adults can't handle a little red ink, either.

Pussies.

Schools are the worst. I forget where, but one recently said kids cant play tag at recess so they couldnt get hurt.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: ScottSwingleComputers

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: mugs
I hate the phrase "the pussification of America," especially when it doesn't apply. Can't we call it "the pussification of jbourne77's company" instead? I think that's a more accurate description.

I disagree. I think the PoA is all around us in this country. It started with our children (specifically, in the public school system), and now we're beginning to find that even grown adults cannot handle the rigors of every day life.

This is akin to that whole debacle over whether or not teachers should use red ink to grade papers because it's seen as a "negative" color.

Apparently adults can't handle a little red ink, either.

Pussies.

Schools are the worst. I forget where, but one recently said kids cant play tag at recess so they couldnt get hurt.

No Tag 4 U!

 

[pennylane]

What does PoA stand for?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Jack Ryan
I am going to have to agree with jbourne on this one. For the people that work in actual corporations will agree that the OP is right on. The corporation I work for has the same nonsense. Performance appraisals are basically a joke. For us, it is all "fudged" to meet certain requirements anyway.

Well, I work in an "actual" corporation (80K employees / ~$22B in yearly sales), and this kind of crap would never be tolerated. Our products are too important to ever put these kinds of things above personnel performance.

 

[sswingle]

Originally posted by: fanerman91
What does PoA stand for?

Pussification of America

Read some thread next time.

 

[Madwand1]

Whatever happened to one on one manager / employee talks? Can you have a separate discussion with the employees, perhaps even suggesting that you're going light on them in the formal review but need to shape up?

Also how about the old technique of faint praise? Do not glorify when it's completely undeserved, but you don't have to be harsh and blunt to get a point across either.

Finally, if you're toothless in managing your employees, then it's a management problem and you probably should work your way out of it when you can instead of having to offer excuses and complaints down the road.

 

[pennylane]

Originally posted by: ScottSwingleComputers

Originally posted by: fanerman91
What does PoA stand for?

Pussification of America

Read some thread next time.

OH, duh. I did read the thread, but the first thing I did was check acronym finder. I couldn't put 2 and 2 together.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Jack Ryan
I am going to have to agree with jbourne on this one. For the people that work in actual corporations will agree that the OP is right on. The corporation I work for has the same nonsense. Performance appraisals are basically a joke. For us, it is all "fudged" to meet certain requirements anyway.

Well, I work in an "actual" corporation (80K employees / ~$22B in yearly sales), and this kind of crap would never be tolerated. Our products are too important to ever put these kinds of things above personnel performance.

The company I work for now is ~100 employees... so fairly small. The last one, however, was a HUGE corporation, and this garbage still got in the way of what really mattered.

My current situation is amplified by the fact that our executive management is overly concerned with how they're perceived by the masses. They want to be seen as "nice guys". But, at my previous job, I saw the same problems. Anymore people are just too afraid to say what's really on their mind (unless they're on the Internet) for fear of getting sued... or worse...

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Jack Ryan
I am going to have to agree with jbourne on this one. For the people that work in actual corporations will agree that the OP is right on. The corporation I work for has the same nonsense. Performance appraisals are basically a joke. For us, it is all "fudged" to meet certain requirements anyway.

Well, I work in an "actual" corporation (80K employees / ~$22B in yearly sales), and this kind of crap would never be tolerated. Our products are too important to ever put these kinds of things above personnel performance.

The company I work for now is ~100 employees... so fairly small. The last one, however, was a HUGE corporation, and this garbage still got in the way of what really mattered.

My current situation is amplified by the fact that our executive management is overly concerned with how they're perceived by the masses. They want to be seen as "nice guys". But, at my previous job, I saw the same problems. Anymore people are just too afraid to say what's really on their mind (unless they're on the Internet) for fear of getting sued... or worse...

With a company that small, incompetence in management can thrive without checks and turn into something like this. I hope they get things straightened out, for all the employees' sake.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Jack Ryan
I am going to have to agree with jbourne on this one. For the people that work in actual corporations will agree that the OP is right on. The corporation I work for has the same nonsense. Performance appraisals are basically a joke. For us, it is all "fudged" to meet certain requirements anyway.

Well, I work in an "actual" corporation (80K employees / ~$22B in yearly sales), and this kind of crap would never be tolerated. Our products are too important to ever put these kinds of things above personnel performance.

The company I work for now is ~100 employees... so fairly small. The last one, however, was a HUGE corporation, and this garbage still got in the way of what really mattered.

My current situation is amplified by the fact that our executive management is overly concerned with how they're perceived by the masses. They want to be seen as "nice guys". But, at my previous job, I saw the same problems. Anymore people are just too afraid to say what's really on their mind (unless they're on the Internet) for fear of getting sued... or worse...

Gunslinger, I will bet that this stuff goes on and you don't know about it. It is in every "CEO for dummies" book out there.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Madwand1
Whatever happened to one on one manager / employee talks?

They're effectiveness went out the window when people realized that no matter how well or how poorly they performed, they'd get a cost of living increase and virtually the same review that their peers get.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Jack Ryan
I am going to have to agree with jbourne on this one. For the people that work in actual corporations will agree that the OP is right on. The corporation I work for has the same nonsense. Performance appraisals are basically a joke. For us, it is all "fudged" to meet certain requirements anyway.

Well, I work in an "actual" corporation (80K employees / ~$22B in yearly sales), and this kind of crap would never be tolerated. Our products are too important to ever put these kinds of things above personnel performance.

The company I work for now is ~100 employees... so fairly small. The last one, however, was a HUGE corporation, and this garbage still got in the way of what really mattered.

My current situation is amplified by the fact that our executive management is overly concerned with how they're perceived by the masses. They want to be seen as "nice guys". But, at my previous job, I saw the same problems. Anymore people are just too afraid to say what's really on their mind (unless they're on the Internet) for fear of getting sued... or worse...

With a company that small, incompetence in management can thrive without checks and turn into something like this. I hope they get things straightened out, for all the employees' sake.

True. Our executive team is very small (4). The company is privately owned and the owners are keeping an eye on things, so we'll see how it goes. I've only been here for a year and I don't have a whole lot of confidence in the place, to be honest.

 

[fitzov]

I take it you haven't gotten rid of that last guy you were compaining about?