[comp.software-eng] Elimination of performance ratings.

alesha@auto-trol.com (Alec Sharp) (06/18/91)

I recently posted the following, but wasn't clear about what I am
asking, as I learned from e-mail I received.

> We are a high-tech (CAD/CAM) company that is interested in looking at
> alternatives to reviews/appraisals.

> I'm trying to find out about companies of several hundred or more
> people that have gone away from appraisal systems, following the
> advice of Deming.

> If you don't use appraisals/reviews, how do you give feedback on
> performance, help people improve, give out pay raises?

Yes, we still want to do reviews/appraisals so we can help employees
develop and improve their skills.  What we want to eliminate is the
1,2,3,4,5 ratings, where people feel upset if they don't get an above
average rating.  So the real question is, if you don't use a rating 
scheme that puts people in boxes, how do you give feedback on 
performance, help people improve, give out pay raises?

Alec

-- 
-----Any resemblance to the views of Auto-trol is purely coincidental-----
alesha@auto-trol.com
Alec Sharp           Auto-trol Technology Corporation
(303) 252-2229       12500 North Washington Street, Denver, CO 80241-2404

daves@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Dave Straker) (06/23/91)

>> If you don't use appraisals/reviews, how do you give feedback on
>> performance, help people improve, give out pay raises?
>
>Yes, we still want to do reviews/appraisals so we can help employees
>develop and improve their skills.  What we want to eliminate is the
>1,2,3,4,5 ratings, where people feel upset if they don't get an above
>average rating.  So the real question is, if you don't use a rating 
>scheme that puts people in boxes, how do you give feedback on 
>performance, help people improve, give out pay raises?
>
>Alec

One of my favourite topics! My opinion is (ie. we don't do it here
but I think we should):

Feedback is qualitative, not quantitative: there are too many variables
to be able to say 'you are at level 3' - when this is done, it becomes
based on qualitative judgement anyway. Feedback against objectives,

eg. Objective: Improve analysis of problems before making decisions.
    Feedback: Good, considered decisions on Widget design. (source: Mike D
              Jim R.). Not so good on Flange specification (source: Jim R).

    Note: the source of the judgement is quoted - no anonymous 'people
	  think you're not doing well.'

The review is discussed between the employee and his supervisor and then
his supervisor's supervisor. Any feedback points may be questioned, with
the source person of any comment being brought in to justify it.

This goes forwards to the pay review:

Pay for a combination of actual and potential contribution. Pay also for
teamwork and longer term contributions (get the balance right to cause
the best behaviour). Only make a special case of special causes of
variation - ie. most people will get around the same pay rise (say 8 - 9%).

Dave Straker            Pinewood Information Systems Division (PWD not PISD)
[8-{)                   HPDESK: David Straker/HP1600/01
                        Unix:   daves@hpopd.pwd.hp.com

flak@mcgp1.UUCP (Dan Flak) (06/26/91)

alesha@auto-trol.com (Alec Sharp) writes:
> I recently posted the following, but wasn't clear about what I am
> asking, as I learned from e-mail I received.
> 
> > We are a high-tech (CAD/CAM) company that is interested in looking at
> > alternatives to reviews/appraisals.
> 
> Yes, we still want to do reviews/appraisals so we can help employees
> develop and improve their skills.  What we want to eliminate is the
> 1,2,3,4,5 ratings

Ideally, ratings should be given on a continuous basis. You
wouldn't drive a car by looking out the window, aim the vehicle,
close your eyes for 12 minutes, open your eyes ...

Unfortunately, in our sue happy society, you have to document
everything. Otherwise, the employee who doesn't get promoted will
have you in court claiming 20 years salary. A 1,2,3,4,5 rating
system is an easy-to-do "square filling" fix for this problem.
(Fixes the symptom, leaves the disease raging unchecked).

Like so many other things in business, (and government,
education, etc.), people tend to measure what's easy, not what's
important.
-- 
       Dan Flak - McCaw Cellular Communications Inc., 5400 Carillon Point
      Kirkland, Wa 98033-7397, 206-828-8006, (usenet: nwnexus!mcgp1!flak)

reggie@paradyne.com (George W. Leach) (06/29/91)

In article <5103@mcgp1.UUCP> flak@mcgp1.UUCP (Dan Flak) writes:
>Ideally, ratings should be given on a continuous basis. You
>wouldn't drive a car by looking out the window, aim the vehicle,
>close your eyes for 12 minutes, open your eyes ...

	Certainly a quarterly review would help one get back on
course, if they were straying from the manager's perspective on
performance.  It is no fun after 12 months or more to find out
how wide apart you are with your manager on opinions concerning
your performance.

>Unfortunately, in our sue happy society, you have to document
>everything. Otherwise, the employee who doesn't get promoted will
>have you in court claiming 20 years salary. A 1,2,3,4,5 rating
>system is an easy-to-do "square filling" fix for this problem.
>(Fixes the symptom, leaves the disease raging unchecked).

	Yes, but just try to justify the numbers!

>Like so many other things in business, (and government,
>education, etc.), people tend to measure what's easy, not what's
>important.

	Yup.  The thing that has always bothered me about performance
rating systems  is that we try to compare someone against others or
against some yard stick, when everyone's job is different.  Yet on
the assembly line, where workers may be doing the exact job, the
unions forbid the company from comparing performance.

George

-- 
George W. Leach					AT&T Paradyne 
reggie@paradyne.com				Mail stop LG-133
Phone: 1-813-530-2376				P.O. Box 2826
FAX: 1-813-530-8224				Largo, FL 34649-2826 USA