Why Your Boss Is Wrong About You

[mgc1961]

In the raging battle over union rights in Wisconsin, those seeking to curtail collective bargaining for state employees have advanced an argument that seems hard to resist: It will make it easier to reward those workers who perform the best. What could be fairer than that?

If only that were true. As anybody who has ever worked in any institution — private or public — knows, one of the primary ways employee effectiveness is judged is the performance review. And nothing could be less fair than that.

In my years studying such reviews, I’ve learned that they are subjective evaluations that measure how “comfortable” a boss is with an employee, not how much an employee contributes to overall results. They are an intimidating tool that makes employees too scared to speak their minds, lest their criticism come back to haunt them in their annual evaluations. They almost guarantee that the owners — whether they be taxpayers or shareholders — will get less bang for their buck.

More at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/opinion/02culbert.html?_r=2&hp

[Proud Liberal Dem]

1. They love using that argument ESPECIALLY when it's referring for teachers

We all want the best teachers, employees, etc. but I don't see how Unions necessarily make it harder for employers to promote good employees and weed out the not-so-good ones. What Unions do, which is important IMHO, is protect workers rights and welfare from the whims of BAD EMPLOYERS and force employers to fulfill THEIR responsibilities and obligations to their employees.

[dmallind]

2. Seniority and other fixed ladder contracts mainly

I have never once worked in a place where longevity was an accurate proxy for either skill or results. Incentive payments and pay scales should not depend solely, or even mostly, on how long person X has worked there or how recently person Y started.

[mgc1961]

4. My experience agrees, in part, with this assessment.

My employer utilizes a revolving method by which non-union employees achieve positions. It involves a combination of in-station, out-of-station, seniority, and interview. I've been passed over twice in recent years for a self-proclaimed Christian who has no compunction about lying in regard to his qualifications and the other one was a quid pro quo advancement. I had seniority, loyalty, professionalism, and competence over both of those applicants and yet... I have decided that I will no longer interview for the position but will rely instead on the strict seniority based method the next time a position is open.

:-)

[bemildred]

3. Bosses are flawed selfish people, just like everyone else.

If they are given arbitrary power, any sort of arbitrary power, a lot of them are going to abuse it.

Annual reviews function mainly an instrument of such arbitrary power, the threat of a "bad review", an incentive to go along and not complain or make waves.

[patrice]

5. I can validate what you are saying in the most objective terms possible,

from my personal experience.

Our entire situation, state, federal, Wall Street, Main Street, has been moving for decades inexorably toward the issue of the processes and means by which professional and other standards are identified, implemented, evaluated, constantly renewed, and kept relevant.

[patrice]

6. Another area in which this is a most important question is "Health" "Care". nt

[Hissyspit]

7. My experience throughout my adult life: Evaluations are worthless

for the purpose for which they obstensively exist.

[hedgehog]

8. Annual reviews can be twisted to say whatever the boss want them to say.