![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Annual Evaluation Philosophies
May. 10th, 2007 07:16 pmThis morning we had a meeting about annual work evaluations. Our big boss organized it into three sections - what are they for, how do they concern us, and what are the difficulties. He explained the many fabulous benefits to work evaluations done properly. This means they have to be true and not just all say that everyone is superior in every way. And nothing in them can be a surprise, or at least nothing negative in them. I suppose ideas for goals for the next could hold some surprises.
They can help people be better at their jobs, help the organization run better, and even help people move along in their careers more efficiently.
Forty-eight minutes into the meeting someone asked about the new meanings of the point values. The most important thing is that "satisfactory" really means good. The label has poor connotations, and the description used to say that the person was meeting the minimal expectations for the job. The next higher rating is "very good" and means that people are going above and beyond the call of duty. Our boss wanted something in between that means doing a solidly decent job, so he added one, but HR didn't like that. They said that the in-between one was included within "satisfactory." He said they should change the name to "good" and change the description. They agreed to change the description to something more like "meets or exceeds minimum expectations."
Fifty-eight minutes into the meeting someone asked if anyone had any more issues. Several people clearly did. One of them finally spoke up and asked how the evaluations were going to be connected to merit raises. The big boss man said we would need another meeting.
After the meeting, even on the way out the door, several people started talking about this last issue, which was thought of as the elephant in the room that no one was mentioning. They were worrying that people with all satisfactories would get raises of only 1% or 2% (when the standard raise is 3%). They were worried that more lower scores than higher scores would be assigned. And they worried that because the issue was not brought up in the meeting, this was a sign that management did not really want to discuss this issue and was not really open to suggestions.
Maybe I'm too naive and trusting. Actually, I definitely am. And maybe that was relevant here, but I really don't think that those worries have any merit. So I went to the big boss (who said he wanted more input) and told him about that. He had thought that people might bring up that issue during the how-does-it-concern us segment. He seemed genuinely surprised that people felt this way.
I said that they might not have felt this way if this meeting had happened six months ago, but now that we're about to do evaluations, raises are on everyone's minds. I reminded him that people who work there do not have very good pay. I told him how both he and our new president have said nothing at all about raises, unlike the previous folks who held those jobs who at least said aloud on a regular basis that we deserved raises and that they would do all they could. We also don't really know what the legislature is doing (they can sometimes mandate that we get raises and they can even sometimes provide the money for them).
I didn't say quite everything that was on my mind, because I was a little nervous, but I do think I got the important points across. And I am proud of myself for actually doing that instead of just thinking to myself that I ought to do it or, worse yet, that someone should. I also felt a little like a snitch, but I didn't give any names and I didn't say anything snitch-like. I'm not sure it is even possible that he could use the information I gave him for evil. We'll see what happens next.
Personally, I don't have these worries. I'll get more scores of "satisfactory" and fewer of "superior" this time, and that's fine. I'll get a crappy raise, if there's any money for raises, regardless of the big boss man's strategies.
I strongly suspect that first-year teacher salaries are going to surpass mine again. Which is making me wonder just how big of a salary I would have to make to be able to afford to finance my own early retirement if I left this employer and its (currently) fabulous pension.
They can help people be better at their jobs, help the organization run better, and even help people move along in their careers more efficiently.
Forty-eight minutes into the meeting someone asked about the new meanings of the point values. The most important thing is that "satisfactory" really means good. The label has poor connotations, and the description used to say that the person was meeting the minimal expectations for the job. The next higher rating is "very good" and means that people are going above and beyond the call of duty. Our boss wanted something in between that means doing a solidly decent job, so he added one, but HR didn't like that. They said that the in-between one was included within "satisfactory." He said they should change the name to "good" and change the description. They agreed to change the description to something more like "meets or exceeds minimum expectations."
Fifty-eight minutes into the meeting someone asked if anyone had any more issues. Several people clearly did. One of them finally spoke up and asked how the evaluations were going to be connected to merit raises. The big boss man said we would need another meeting.
After the meeting, even on the way out the door, several people started talking about this last issue, which was thought of as the elephant in the room that no one was mentioning. They were worrying that people with all satisfactories would get raises of only 1% or 2% (when the standard raise is 3%). They were worried that more lower scores than higher scores would be assigned. And they worried that because the issue was not brought up in the meeting, this was a sign that management did not really want to discuss this issue and was not really open to suggestions.
Maybe I'm too naive and trusting. Actually, I definitely am. And maybe that was relevant here, but I really don't think that those worries have any merit. So I went to the big boss (who said he wanted more input) and told him about that. He had thought that people might bring up that issue during the how-does-it-concern us segment. He seemed genuinely surprised that people felt this way.
I said that they might not have felt this way if this meeting had happened six months ago, but now that we're about to do evaluations, raises are on everyone's minds. I reminded him that people who work there do not have very good pay. I told him how both he and our new president have said nothing at all about raises, unlike the previous folks who held those jobs who at least said aloud on a regular basis that we deserved raises and that they would do all they could. We also don't really know what the legislature is doing (they can sometimes mandate that we get raises and they can even sometimes provide the money for them).
I didn't say quite everything that was on my mind, because I was a little nervous, but I do think I got the important points across. And I am proud of myself for actually doing that instead of just thinking to myself that I ought to do it or, worse yet, that someone should. I also felt a little like a snitch, but I didn't give any names and I didn't say anything snitch-like. I'm not sure it is even possible that he could use the information I gave him for evil. We'll see what happens next.
Personally, I don't have these worries. I'll get more scores of "satisfactory" and fewer of "superior" this time, and that's fine. I'll get a crappy raise, if there's any money for raises, regardless of the big boss man's strategies.
I strongly suspect that first-year teacher salaries are going to surpass mine again. Which is making me wonder just how big of a salary I would have to make to be able to afford to finance my own early retirement if I left this employer and its (currently) fabulous pension.