Performance Review

W

WGT

Registered User
Messages
193
Hi,
Just had a performance review and one of the actions going forward was (names are not real).

"We agreed that Person X needs to show positivity in all his actions to make sure he is portrayed as a go to person in the company as a whole. This has already started with Personal X successfully helping out Dept 1 and Dept 2 recently, continuing this will increase his profile in Company 1."

I've read this a number of teams and I feel it implies that I've shown negativity previously. Also at the review, the manager said that sometimes being quiet can be perceived as being negative, which I found a bit odd. I think quiet, diligent and hard-working.
Any other views welcome. Am I reading too much into this?
 
I would read it as a manager recognising that the employee has skills that other people in the company could benefit more from. It may be that the other people in the company are not aware of the skills or the employee as they hide in the corner or it may be that others perceive that the employee is not approachable.

It may be the case that the manager hears negative feedback about the employee from others in the company but the manager recognises that the work the employee does is very good, they just don't 'market' themselves well.
 
That falls a long way short of what I would regard as a meaningful or measurable action at a performance review.

Having conducted and received a multitude of performance reviews, the simple formula for rectifying technical or inter-personal skills at review time are expected to be SMART
  1. Specific - aimed at changing a specific deficit or rectifying a technical need the employee has agreed to change
  2. Measurable - What is the measure of this "thing" now and what must / will it be in order to be viewed as successful
  3. Accountable - Who must the employee account (be responsible to) to for this change? and / or
  4. Achievable - It must be reasonable to expect the employee to make the change in the time-frame agreed. If it can't be done in the time agreed, then it must be divided into more manageable "chunks" or objectives in support of the goal.
  5. Relevant - the goal must be relevant to the the employee's identified need and relevant to their job performance and / or
  6. Realistic - it must be one the employee can change (not their height, skin colour, body shape, etc)
  7. Time - Time-limited. The employee must report back to the manager by a specific date on progress to achieving the goal / objective.
There are versions of SMART / SMARTER goal setting around on the net to survey. I suggest the person masquerading as your manager familiarise him/her-self with them as the goal (or series of objectives to achieve the goal) above is utter nonsense and open to all kinds of mis-interpretation.
 
Pr

Thanks all for your feedback.

To my mind, I have always made myself available for requests for work from the other departments. However, I can't pre-empt this work. This has to be requested by the other departments.
I think my core job requires me to be 'quiet', focussed and diligent. I always focus on getting tasks on my todo list completed and have never been too focused on perceptions as I feel that's an effect that should flow from my actions.
I agree with Mathepac, there's too much ambiguity here.
 
As a manager myself I use SMART too, I would never make a personal reference to a person's personality like that.. i.e,. you are too quiet........... unless your job is to be a comedian and you are working hard what is the problem. I like a good mix of quiet and lively on my team..
 
WGT said:
Hi,
We agreed
Click to expand...

It doesn't sound like it was agreed. Is there an opportunity to revisit/clarify with your manager?

I agree with the that the previous poster that an individual's personality is not fair game for a performance review/ development plan.

I'd also recommend applying the SMART approach, although the version I've seen stands for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound. It doesn't really matter which version you use; their all variants on a similar them. For example, Wiki has a slightly different version again and introduces the concept of SMARTER which is interesting.

To illustrate, SMART in this case might look like (example only):

Objective: Anticipate needs from internal stakeholders by implementing reviews with other departments. This will be achieved in full by 31/10/2012 through setting up [annual/quarterly] reviews with the heads of departments A, B and C. This quarterly review will discuss progress in the previous quarter and plan for events in the upcoming period ahead. X number of review meetings will be complete by Y date.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top