Skip to main content

Rating The Supervisors


It's that time of year again. Time to do your annual self-rating and submit it to your boss, after which time you have a performance discussion, and after that you get a report card that you have to sign.

Personally I find the whole process utterly painful. Somewhat inefficient. Incomplete. Even degrading.

The real performance discussions happen all year round (or they don't) and you know what your boss is looking for from you. You know that you do well on some of those fronts, but certainly not all. It's like marriage: You may be the most devoted spouse in the world but then again you are the most irritating one, too. Especially when you leave the cap off the toothpaste no matter how many times they tell you to put it back on.

(For me it's the goddamn Outlook calendar.)

You know and your boss knows that there's a whole thicket of issues around writing the formal performance appraisal and you do this dance, saying and not saying, thinking and they're thinking, and the result is...well it is something. It's not clear what it is, but the words look like English written on a page.

A really good performance appraisal helps you, for sure. It's a piece of paper that says to somebody else, hey this person did a good job there, they've got value as an employee. Hire them.

You know that and so does your boss.

Conversely a bad performance appraisal, or even one that is nonchalant, doesn't do very much for your career...obviously.

So you really want that piece of paper to be good.

But you also want it to be honest. You do a lot of work during the year that the boss doesn't see, work outside your strict performance requirements probably, work that you innovated and which may or may not have seen a reward.

You want recognition. You want some respect. You want the people in charge to value you.

It's hard to say what motivates your boss. Maybe they care about your professional development. Maybe they're devoted to honesty and integrity, and want to capture something accurate about your positives and negatives as a staffer. Certainly they don't have a lot of time, because they have to do actual work in addition to managing you. And they don't want to have to argue later on about whether the appraisal was fair, or worse get into a legal tangle.

There is also the larger system to think of, of course: Both you and your supervisor are situated in a complicated web of reporting requirements. The paperwork has to be in on time, no matter what state of perfection it's in.

And the other thing. Nowhere in the system are you actually rating your supervisor.

Nowhere in the system is the supervisor pledging to perform against certain management metrics, and assigning key performance indicators and weights to those.

As a result, they can be the shittiest, most abusive, most arbitrary and incompetent boss alive, and nobody on the planet is going to know it, other than if you sink your career by making a stink.

So performance appraisals don't help organizational productivity much. At best, they provide a partial picture or employee performance. At worst, they misrepresent reality, create ill will between employee and supervisor, and entrench poor performers in place, while totally ignoring a critical question: How well are the bosses bossing the employees?

Obviously this question is a critical one if our greatest asset is our people, as we are frequently wont to say.

If I had a magic wand I would eliminate performance appraisals entirely, and substitute instead six quantitative "pulse" surveys a year, followed by appointments to have real conversations. Employees would rate supervisors anonymously. Supervisors would rate employees one at a time, and they would have to provide at least one sentence of explanatory information after any highly positive or negative rating.

The result of these conversations would be rolled up into an annual review, which would be relatively automatic and based on the previous conversations.

It isn't a perfect suggestion I'm offering. But I think it would get us closer to whatever representation of reality one might call "the truth."

______

All opinions are Dr. Blumenthal's own and do not represent those of her agency or the federal government as a whole. Photo by Mindaugas Danys via Flickr (Creative Commons)

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between brand equity and brand parity?

Brand equity is a financial calculation. It is the difference between a commodity product or service and a branded one. For example if you sell a plain orange for $.50 but a Sunkist orange for $.75 and the Sunkist orange has brand equity you can calculate it at $.25 per orange.

Brand parity exists when two different brands have a relatively equal value. The reason we call it "parity" is that the basis of their value may be different. For example, one brand may be seen as higher in quality, while the other is perceived as fashionable.

________________
All opinions my own. Originally posted to Quora. Public domain photo by hbieser via Pixabay.

What is the difference between "brand positioning," "brand mantra," and "brand tagline?"

Brand positioning statement: This is a 1–2 sentence description of what makes the brand different from its competitors (or different in its space), and compelling. Typically the positioning combines elements of the conceptual (e.g., “innovative design,” something that would be in your imagination) with the literal and physical (e.g., “the outside of the car is made of the thinnest, strongest metal on earth”). The audience for this statement is internal. It’s intended to get everybody on the same page before going out with any communication products.Brand mantra: This is a very short phrase that is used predominantly by people inside the organization, but also by those outside it, in order to understand the “essence” or the “soul” of the brand and to sell it to employees. An example would be Google’s “Don’t be evil.” You wouldn’t really see it in an ad, but you might see it mentioned or discussed in an article about the company intended to represent it to investors, influencers, etc.Br…

Nitro Cold Brew and the Oncoming Crash of Starbucks

A long time ago (January 7, 2008), the Wall Street Journal ran an article about McDonald's competing against Starbucks.
At the time the issue was that the former planned to pit its own deluxe coffees head to head with the latter.
At the time I wrote that while Starbucks could be confident in its brand-loyal consumers, the company, my personal favorite brand of all time,  "...needs to see this as a major warning signal. As I have said before, it is time to reinvent the brand — now.  "Starbucks should consider killing its own brand and resurrecting it as something even better — the ultimate, uncopyable 'third space' that is suited for the way we live now.  "There is no growth left for Starbucks as it stands anymore — it has saturated the market. It is time to do something daring, different, and better — astounding and delighting the millions (billions?) of dedicated Starbucks fans out there who are rooting for the brand to survive and succeed." Today as …