This link has been bookmarked by 23 people . It was first bookmarked on 20 Oct 2008, by Chuck Brands.
-
27 Mar 09
-
04 Dec 08
-
The performance review is simply the place where the boss comes up with a story to justify the predetermined pay
-
-
21 Nov 08
-
04 Nov 08
-
28 Oct 08
-
paul reidTo my way of thinking, a one-side-accountable, boss-administered review is little more than a dysfunctional pretense. It's a negative to corporate performance, an obstacle to straight-talk relationships, and a prime cause of low morale at work. Even the mere knowledge that such an event will take place damages daily communications and teamwork.
-
27 Oct 08
-
24 Oct 08
-
22 Oct 08
-
-
Get Rid of the Performance Review!
-
-
21 Oct 08
-
-
Another bogus element is the idea that pay is a function of performance, and that the words being spoken in a performance review will affect pay. But usually they don't. I believe pay is primarily determined by market forces, with most jobs placed in a pay range prior to an employee's hiring.
-
Most performance reviews are staged as "objective" commentary, as if any two supervisors would reach the same conclusions about the merits and faults of the subordinate. But consider the well-observed fact that when people switch bosses, they often receive sharply different evaluations from the new bosses to whom they now report.
- 5 more annotations...
-
-
Worse, bosses apply the same rating scale to people with different functions. They don't redo the checklist for every different activity. As a result, bosses reduce their global sentiments to a set of metrics that captures the unique qualities of neither the person nor the job.
-
The No. 1 reason for that reluctance is that employees want to turn to somebody who understands their distinctive talents and way of thinking, or knows them sufficiently well to appreciate the reasons behind the unique ways they are driven to operate.
-
That's because the performance review is so one-sided, giving the boss all the power. The boss in the performance review thinks of himself or herself as the evaluator, and doesn't engage in teamwork with the subordinate. It isn't, "How are we going to work together as a team?" It's, "How are you performing for me?" It's not our joint performance that's at issue. It's the employee's performance that's a problem.
-
Instead of stimulating corporate effectiveness, they lead to just-in-case and cover-your-behind activities that reduce the amount of time that could be put to productive use. Instead of promoting directness, honesty and candor, they stimulate inauthentic conversations in which people cast self-interested pursuits as essential company activities.
-
Keep in mind, of course, that improvement is each individual's own responsibility. You can only make yourself better. The best you can do for others is to develop a trusting relationship where they can ask for feedback and help when they see the need and feel sufficiently valued to take it. Getting rid of the performance review is a necessary, and affirming, step in that direction.
-
-
-
Uma Shankarcross-purposes. The boss wants to discuss where performance needs to be improved, while the subordinate is focused on such small issues as compensation, job progression and career advancement. The boss is thinking about missed opportunities, skill limitat
work review resources resource productivity performance office management reviews wsj
-
David Feld"You can call me 'dense,' you can call me 'iconoclastic,' but I see nothing constructive about an annual pay and performance review. It's a mainstream practice that has baffled me for years."
management work wsj productivity leadership hr humanresources theory essay
-
20 Oct 08
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.