Discussion: View Thread

Employee Performance Ratings

  • 1.  Employee Performance Ratings

    Posted 07-07-2022 08:30 PM

    Has anyone encountered an employee performance rating system in which management requires scores to fit an expected distribution, such as a bell curve? 



    ------------------------------
    Bill McAnally
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Employee Performance Ratings

    Posted 07-08-2022 09:55 AM
    I have not run into that, but I don't think it is ever right to force people to fit along a bell curve. If everyone is meeting expectations, no one should be ranked in a way that they appear to be failing or underperforming. 
    I've known people that had college professors grade on a bell curve, and it seems ridiculous to me. If everyone does their best to learn the material and earns an A, why should some of them be given a C?

    I think any performance review for an individual should be independentof how others in the group are performing. I wonder if that kind of ranking system squashes employees' desire to work as a team...
    I know in a bell curve graded course I would be much less likely to feel motivated to help other students that were confused. 

    Statistics are nice, but sometimes a given sample won't fit a nice little standard curve. I don't think we should manipulate assessments of people's performance to make them fit a predetermined distribution. 


    ------------------------------
    Heidi C. Wallace, P.E., M.ASCE
    Tulsa, OK
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: Employee Performance Ratings

    Posted 07-11-2022 10:59 AM
    In my opinion, that is a very naïve take for two reasons. First, the bell curve is more for the manager than the employees. If Manager A is a tougher reviewer than Manager B, is it fair that Manager A's employees be rated below Manager B's? What are the odds of everyone in Manager A's group 'deserving' a C? Wouldn't that point to a problem?
    Second, if everyone gets and A (or a C, or a B...), it is not much of an evaluation. Remember how bell curves tend to fit natural systems? Employee reviews and class scores are no different. If you do not see any difference in the scores, high or low, wouldn't that point to different problem?
    To think that not helping your teammates, presumably contrary to your company goals, would raise your evaluation score is a very jaded view of professional evaluations. The best employees (and yes there is always a difference) are those that can make the best use of all of the available resources (aka, "the team") to achieve the desired goals. I would hope the evaluation would reflect that.
    In terms of fairness, my professors often used bell curves but I can't remember anyone ever being curved down. To let the grading system affect how you think about helping classmates seems very Machiavellian and I hope most people don't think that way.


    ------------------------------
    Brad Watson P.E., M.ASCE
    Senior Engineer
    Freese & Nichols Inc
    Alvarado TX
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: Employee Performance Ratings

    Posted 07-12-2022 10:22 AM
    I don't appreciate the condescending tone of your response. You could have made your comment without talking down at me. 

    Research and anecdotal evidence show that these type of rankings have common flaws including creating an environmental that breeds unhealthy team relationships. 

    Are you honestly telling me that every company has a given percentage of people not meeting expectations? Forced cutting of the bottom, a practice tied to these rankings at many places, assumes that the bottom x% aren't worth having in the company. If 10% of your employees need to be cut on a regular basis, you may need to reevaluate your hiring, onboarding, and continued training practices. 

    To the comment on grades: if everyone fails then I would say that is an indicator that the course was likely unfairly evaluated or the course was poorly taught. If every single student gets a 100% then it was likely not properly evaluated. But, if a professor does an excellent job at engaging students and effectively teaching and the lowest grade is a 90%, so be it; as long as they met the correct objectives that's fair.  I had courses with curves at the end to adjust everyone up by a certain number of points to adjust for things like tests being harder than intended to pass, but never was there any fixed percentage of students required at a C or failing grade. 

    Bottom line:  I think that bell curve style rankings try to reduce things too neatly for the number of variables involved. I know as engineers we like a nice, clean data set, but these are real people we're talking about.

    I really enjoy training new hires at my job. It is exciting to see them really start to take ownership of their work, grow as designers, and step up to fill new roles. We are a team. The better any of us does, the better all of us do. The goal is to hire good people and retain them for years to come. That job security and shared stake in our firm's future pushes us to better ourselves and one another. I genuinely enjoy the people I work with, and I would hate to work somewhere that someone else doing well is disheartening or perceived as a threat by the others in the group. Fear isn't the healthiest motivator in the workplace, and these "rank and yank" practices absolutely seem to me to rely on it. "The bottom 'x%' get cut" means that any success by one person puts another person in greater danger of losing their job; that can't breed healthy teams. You shouldn't see your team just as a resource to use to get ahead or rungs on your ladder to the top. Every success by anyone of your team should be something you can all genuinely celebrate.

    ------------------------------
    Heidi C. Wallace, P.E., M.ASCE
    Tulsa, OK
    ------------------------------



  • 5.  RE: Employee Performance Ratings

    Posted 07-13-2022 11:16 AM
    I apologize for the tone, it was not intended. 
    The 10% comment was not mine and I do not agree with it. My point was that the evaluation should be capturing the differences among people and that there are always differences. Also, you concede that adjustments for "things like tests being harder" is appropriate. That adjustment is what I think of when the original question asked about fitting "an expected distribution".
    Now I don't think we actually significantly disagree on this issue; I think I was put off by your comment about your reduced motivation to help others because of the curve. Perhaps I read something into it that wasn't there.

    ------------------------------
    Brad Watson P.E., M.ASCE
    Senior Engineer
    Freese & Nichols Inc
    Alvarado TX
    ------------------------------



  • 6.  RE: Employee Performance Ratings

    Posted 07-11-2022 11:16 AM
    Heidi:
    I agree 100% with your thinking. I have over the years judged professional value on performance. Management expectations must always be clear to employees as well as them understanding those expectations. The expectations can vary employee to employee. Grading on a curve makes no sense. If the expectations are too low, then management must raise them. Ultimately the better performers will rise accordingly, and a natural differentiation will occur. I believe this is fair to all. In our business, we are always faced with layoffs, and one needs to have a fair and unbiased methodology. It is important that everyone understands the expectations and the resultant consequences. This allows the employees to make their own determination as to the level of effort to compete. Of course, there will always be circumstances beyond an employee's control that must be taken into account.

    ------------------------------
    Vito Rotondi, (Retired)
    Arch. S.E. P.E. Life M ASCE
    Westmont Illinois
    ------------------------------



  • 7.  RE: Employee Performance Ratings

    Posted 07-08-2022 01:17 PM
    Vitality curve - Wikipedia

    Jack Welch introduced the Vitality Curve which recommended that the bottom 10% be fired.  We can look at the state of General Electric today and see the results.

    ------------------------------
    Chad Morrison P.E., F.ASCE
    Professional Engineer
    Greenville RI
    ------------------------------



  • 8.  RE: Employee Performance Ratings

    Posted 07-11-2022 11:00 AM
    I spent a good part of my career under such a system and participated in countless ranking sessions. The process has its virtues - specifically for driving employee performance against individual and corporate goals - but can be incredibly demotivating for those at both the giving and receiving ends. The system can encourage an arms race of sorts as baseline performance is relative to others in one's ranking pool. Ours was not necessarily a Gaussian distribution but had a forced average value. I also think your question begs a higher level question of best HR practices for employee recognition and reward. i personally think it's always going to be an unsatisfying process.

    ------------------------------
    Mitch Winkler P.E., M.ASCE
    Houston, TX
    ------------------------------



  • 9.  RE: Employee Performance Ratings

    Posted 07-11-2022 11:00 AM
    Every large company I have worked for since 1981 (Exxon, STMicro, Maxim, Qorvo) use the bell curve system to various degrees. When times are tough it makes it easier to justify layoffs since it is mathematically defensible. However, as we all realize, the human element of it is what can make it too subjective to the reviewer's biases. In a age of supposed "equality" the system inherently permits biases (perhaps unrelated to the job) to influence the debate over who is not only the bottom 10% but also who is in the top 10% and get all the best salary treatments and promotions on the "fast track". While the bell curve may work well for widgets, it is difficult to be fair when a diverse human workforce is the subject.

    ------------------------------
    Darrell Goss P.E., M.ASCE
    Engineer
    Irving TX
    ------------------------------



  • 10.  RE: Employee Performance Ratings

    Posted 07-11-2022 11:01 AM
    Yes. In the 80s the Army with OERs, Officer Efficiency Reports. Your boss was your rater and his boss was your endorser. Endorsers were required to darken a box with where you fell in their experience. I recall about 5 choices, something like  top 1%, 10%, 50%, 90%, 99%. Endorser scoring was tracked and their historical distribution of ratings was printed next to how they scored you. They might have you in the top 10% and their distribution might show they checked the top 10% box 25% of the time. Can't say if they still use that system. They only now are transitioning to a different physical fitness test from their 80s one.

    ------------------------------
    Jan Harris P.E., F.ASCE
    President
    Liberty Engineering, PC
    Virginia Beach VA
    ------------------------------



  • 11.  RE: Employee Performance Ratings

    Posted 07-13-2022 11:15 AM
    Hey Jan,
    Navy had the same system for fitness reports, except that you could be rated top or bottom 1%, 5%, 10%, 25%, 50%.  I think those were the categories.  Of course, most raters with competent staffs rated everyone in the top category.  So, there was also a requirement to rank each person against the ratees of the same grade, so you could be top 1% but 4th among 4 ratees, or you could possibly be bottom 50% but first among 5 of the same rank.  Then there were also boxes to check to recommend a ratee for early promotion (and also rank those) and recommend for command.  There was tracking of how the commanders tended to rate people, and some famous for bad reports, so the promotion boards could level out the ratings.  The selection percentage for promotion went down as one rose to higher rank and it was considered the kiss of death to have a report in which one was not recommended for early promotion and command regardless of the ratings or how nice the words were.  Add in the up or out career path and it could be a pretty brutal system, in which perfectly capable and efficient junior officers had strong incentives to leave.  it was a little more forgiving for enlisted personnel, but fair to poor marks could make a person not eligible for reenlistment.  Given the competency of our military in the decades since then, it seems to have produced a pretty good result although the outcome in Afghanistan wasn't any better than Vietnam - the light at the end of the tunnel turned out to be the oncoming train as soon as we cleared the tracks.

    ------------------------------
    William Forbes MASCE, PE, ME, BCEE
    Senior Principal Engineer/Vice President of Engineering
    Forensic Analysis & Engineering Corporation
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    [Phone]
    ------------------------------



  • 12.  RE: Employee Performance Ratings

    Posted 07-13-2022 09:20 PM
    This was a super interesting read (Re: the navy) ! I've sat on both sides of this table as have many here, but I've always found it super weird to force grade a system. Here's my philosophy:
    • The mission matters the most. In some cases I want the best of the best if the mission requires it (such as a competent and fit war fighter) this is where I might understand the up or out philosophy. In other situations, (such as a day laborer) I don't need the best of the best, because if I want the best of the best I typically have to pay the higher wages that the market price may not be able to handle. In some positions just good enough is ok.
    • If you work for me you will always know where you stand. We have open and honest conversations often especially when things aren't where we need them to be. Once a year seems like spreadsheet management.
    • People aren't predictable widgets. We go through highs and lows. The boss does too. To put that one a scale seems forced and arbitrary. Some times grace, hope, and learning goes along way.
    • The game of business has no winners just sustainers. Simon Sinek refers to business as "an infinite game" where the object is just to stay in the game for as long as possible and where the rules change with no defined "win". We aren't playing football or battles that have a defined end.
    In the business world, there tends to be an over reliance on management book advice. In my opinion, all things are circumstance dependent. Jack Welch at GE was famous for the top 20% employee retention theory and lowest 10% to be shown the door. We know it as the "Vitality Curve". I figure that if a manager needs a bell curve to figure out ones lowest performers then they aren't the best manager.

    ------------------------------
    Jesse Kamm PhD, PMP, A.M.ASCE
    Senior Vice President of Construction Management
    ------------------------------



  • 13.  RE: Employee Performance Ratings

    Posted 07-13-2022 11:16 AM
    Thanks for this Bill!
    Re: "employee performance rating system"

    • Background:
      The people in an organization come to work each day expecting to do the very best they can.
    • But they really have no control over the system of management under which they perform.
    • C-suite and Executives own that system, and they define what it means by their own observable behaviors.
    Wish to see more productive behaviors from employees?
    Then let C-suite and Executives model such.
    Cheers,
    Bill

    ------------------------------
    William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
    Buffalo, N.Y.

    "It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880
    ------------------------------



  • 14.  RE: Employee Performance Ratings

    Posted 07-18-2022 10:02 AM
    The bell curve is used for the company's benefit, not the employee's. The bell curve will be employed when the company decides to open an engineering office in India in order to drive their unit rates down and contribute to the decline of their own economy. The bell curve was used to justify engineering firms hanging around in Cairo while Tarir square was blowing up and evacuating people became an unforeseen and poorly handled circumstance by corporate managers still using the bell curve and other statistical tools for situations they were never geared to handle.

    Employee performance ratings should never be handled by strangers. Supervisors that aren't familiar with what the people in their group can do need to be. The corporate HR "coping" model needs to dumped in favor of something that actually promotes and develops people based on merit and not how they fit the next revision of the 5 year plan. If your ratings are being targeted by management at a Bell curve distribution, you're in a rut. Bell curves are for understanding how populations change and adapt, not for funneling them into cubicle pockets like something out of the Matrix. An "expected" distribution is actually a financial construct, usually heavily tweaked to produce a manpower cost model that fits the sales forecast. Every one I ever participated in as a manager was cloaked in secrecy about it's intents and had to be worked around in order to keep key people and do good work.

    ------------------------------
    William Bala P.E., S.E., M.ASCE
    Owner
    Hawkins TX
    ------------------------------



  • 15.  RE: Employee Performance Ratings

    Posted 07-21-2022 02:15 PM

    Mr. Bala: indeed it is as you have rightly pointed out. Also Bill Hayden captured in just few sentences the gamut of performance evaluation practice of most (if not all). At the end of the day – perhaps that's how the system works (the 1992 popular movie 'A Few Good Men' is perhaps a good portrayal of some aspects of it).

    Here are two interesting treatises on performance appraisal/evaluation practice and use of bell-curve.

    • The first is a MIT paper that analyzed bell-curve practice – and why and how it goes against employees. But, then it argued – eventually the practice betrays the corporate interests.

    • The second is a Harvard Business Review article – that questioned – appraisal of what? It discusses the subjectivity and all human factors in the appraisal process – the observer-observed – the subject-object relationships. And how such relationships affect the process.

    -----

    Dr. Dilip K Barua, PhD

    Website

    Google Scholar




  • 16.  RE: Employee Performance Ratings

    Posted 08-06-2022 11:12 AM

    Thanks for the insightful comments. I agree with the MIT paper that imposing a bell curve is harmful. I've witnessed the resentment and dissent it creates. And as Heidi warns, I've also observed professionals sabotage each other when they perceived it to be a zero-sum game.

    I like to imagine this scenario.

    • A high school has every P.E. student run a timed mile. Because natural talents are random, we would expect their distribution of times to be approximately Gaussian.
    • The track coach recruits the best runners for her team. Others try out, also. The team's time distributions will certainly be skewed toward faster times. It might still trend toward a Gaussian distribution because of the unrecruited students, but another distribution is most likely.
    • The coach gives the team conditioning exercises and trains them to run more efficiently. Less motivated, less talented students quit. If the coach is any good, the team taken to meets will no longer be running with only innate talents and no longer be demonstrating a Gaussian distribution. The time distribution may approach a Chi-squared distribution.

    It's the same in the workplace. A manager who can't recruit better than a random distribution of talent or coach them toward improved performance is failing.

    Bill



    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 17.  RE: Employee Performance Ratings

    Posted 08-24-2022 10:54 PM
    Having participated on both sides of receiving and providing evaluations, I was of the belief that HR had devised a confrontation avoidance system. Of course, not having a PhD in HR Management or HR psychology, my hypothesis contained a personally warped engineering logic and the singular perspective of a young engineer.

    First and foremost, let me start by saying that I was fortunate in my early career to have some great and knowledgeable supervisors; they operated within the management system provided.  

    First, the employee rating system was tied to both titles and pay raises. In my opinion, it was a system of progress based on statistics, so I understand the usage of the bell curve. The titles had pay ranges and depending on where you started within that pay range (under the assumption of average performance) your performance evaluations were directly proportionate to the percentage of pay raise. The new salary could result in a title change or a new title typically resulted in a change in salary; aka the chicken or the egg. There may a typical or set number of years associated with that title and the pay range. One could develop an equation based on the curve. One could argue that the system was designed for personnel beyond reproach and company-wide equity (or was it, see discussions on PIPs).

    As a young engineer, I was troubled one moment during one time of the year, performance evaluation day. As much as I loved the technical side of work, this day forced me to address something that I grew to believe was of little consequence. How does a young engineer respond to a performance rating of 3 out of 5 or 5 out of 10 at the end of the year while receiving the feedback "Great job" on a regular basis. As a recent Magna Cum Laude graduate, I was use to grades above 90%. To me, I could not separate my college evaluations from my professional evaluations. These were like failing grades. For one moment out of one day, I had a challenge of dealing with the contradiction.

    There was also the link between performance evaluations and promotions. A higher than average performance evaluation could trigger an earlier than normal promotion. Back to the bell curve, progressing in pay too fast would mean promoting ahead of the normal. Perhaps, relative to some of the other projects within the group, 5 out of 10 or 3 out of 5 may be the correct evaluation based on level of relative complexity and time spent completing assignments. While I am sure I would have asked follow-up questions, I know there would be at least one engineer spending a month developing a thesis contradicting the evaluation. However, assignment complexity would have made more sense as a basis than progressing too fast.. 

    As a part of management, I argued during those training sessions for performance evaluation & raises that a system that rewarded EVERYONE for doing their job well on a daily basis was a disservice for those performing above and beyond their regular duties. One could receive the highest performance evaluation but pay raises were limited to a given percentage for the year. Right or wrong, I stated that people are hired to perform their job well. No one hires someone to perform poorly. The reward for doing a good job on a regular basis is a regular paycheck. Performance increases should be reserved for exceptional or outstanding performance. Everyone should not receive a raise every year, unless tied to "cost of living". In the end, you do the best to reward those outstanding individuals that you represent.

    As one's perspective grows within a company, one may begin to see the differing levels of complexity from group-to-group and department-to-department. Multiple engineers from different groups/departments may share length of service & titles (i.e., Engineer 12 or Super Project Engineer Extraordinaire) but the level of complexity of their assignments may differ exponentially. I would love to see the algorithm that can provide a system of equity in performance evaluation, salary and pay raises that takes into account job complexity, job performance as well as the other intangibles; especially that "works well with others". Yes, that individual that has the most complex task may not always work well with others. LOL! You throw that assignment through the crack in their door, run and listen for the foul language as they comment on how ridiculous the concept is. 

    You may be surprised to know that I started this against the bell-curve. In contemplating the complexity of it all, my guess is that they eventually get it right. The salary pay raises and appreciation is eventually commensurate with performance. In my opinion, the challenge is keeping engineers long enough to get to that leveling point. My experiences are "ancient", I wonder if mid-size to large companies are figuring it out.

    ------------------------------
    James Williams P.E., M.ASCE
    Principal/Owner
    POA&M Structural Engineering, PLC
    Yorktown, VA
    ------------------------------



  • 18.  RE: Employee Performance Ratings

    Posted 08-25-2022 03:49 PM
    James:
    Everything you say is true based on my experience. Algorithms (equations, etc.) are fine to a point. However, our business is one of people. People have biases no matter how we may attempt to minimize, but never avoid them. We may have a process and procedures to follow as a standard, but these are all based on a human providing an assessment of the individual. It pretty much is based on the reviewer's perception and their biase. There for to me, the most accurate assessments should be based on a 360 approach where all individuals in the interface points provide their assessment of the individual along with the more objective elements such as accuracy, timeliness, innovation, problem solving etc.

    ------------------------------
    Vito Rotondi, (Retired)
    Arch. S.E. P.E. Life M ASCE
    Westmont Illinois
    ------------------------------



  • 19.  RE: Employee Performance Ratings

    Posted 08-26-2022 07:40 AM
    Vito:
    As you state, human biases are a challenge. 
    Performance evaluations were typically an annual event. Where I was employed, we worked with a variety of individuals from various departments. The duration, type and complexity of projects varied. Can we converge or get to a more accurate assessment by adding more individuals?  Do you envision a particular industry or company size ideal for a 360 approach? 

    I imagine random sampling of individuals for feedback would be an option. How do you weigh the additional cost in overhead for this non-billable task? It would be interesting to see this process subjected to a study in optimization. I like the idea of adding weight to project complexity and other aspects. If project assignments within a group is subject to human biases. 

    I have a tendency to think in the ideal first and eventually resign to reality. 



    ------------------------------
    James Williams P.E., M.ASCE
    Principal/Owner
    POA&M Structural Engineering, PLC
    Yorktown, VA
    ------------------------------



  • 20.  RE: Employee Performance Ratings

    Posted 08-26-2022 11:30 AM
    James:
    My career experiences have been in all aspects of project delivery of very complex industrial plants of many types starting with fossil, nuclear, metals, technology, foods, oil and gas, manufacturing etc. Many of these projects were engineering, procurement, construction and startup. Turnkey lumpsum as well as T&M. Held numerous positions throughout the in all aspects of the EPC process. Projects were worldwide.
    Later in life I developed and taught Project Management programs and Risk Management programs for our young people. We tried to develop evaluation systems for our people as well as projects. My experience has shown me that the most successful project deliveries were a result of people with excellent problem-solving skills and of most importance COMMUNICATION skills working in teams.
    The mechanics of "doing things" are easily learned, so I did not place a high value on the technical skills. I did place high value on integrity and communication. Without crisp communication and integrity projects suffer. Money is spilled and confidence and motivation suffers.
    The 360 process provides an in-depth view of an individual's ability to interface and communicate. It is truly a broader picture of the individuals' qualities and insight into future leadership potential.
    The question of project complexities is more easily quantified by the number of interfaces (elements and nodes). Well defined organization processes and procedures will help manage complexity.
    With regards to nonproductive time doing feedback assessments is covered as a whole in improved productivity, minimizing rework etc. It is part of doing good business. Pay me now or 5 x later. We all know that making changes or recovering from design errors costs much more. Change -Cost influence curve.

    ------------------------------
    Vito Rotondi, (Retired)
    Arch. S.E. P.E. Life M ASCE
    Westmont Illinois
    ------------------------------



  • 21.  RE: Employee Performance Ratings

    Posted 08-27-2022 09:38 AM
    Vito, 
    In reference to project complexity, I am referring to the individual's assignment or task within a group not the company projects. As I mentioned before, across a company there may be engineers with similar titles but the complexity of their assignments may differ tremendously. All may be high performers at their jobs, but different.  I plead no contest when it comes to figuring out how to reward in a system where all (but non-performers) are rewarded.

    You say "We tried to develop ...". How successful were you in developing an evaluation system for people and/or projects? Is the system used today? [Note: If you have not guessed, it has been many moons since I was part of a large company. It has been over a decade since I provided my last performance evaluation.]

    ------------------------------
    James Williams P.E., M.ASCE
    Principal/Owner
    POA&M Structural Engineering, PLC
    Yorktown, VA
    ------------------------------



  • 22.  RE: Employee Performance Ratings

    Posted 08-29-2022 11:50 AM
    Hi James:

    Yes, we did implement a project evaluation system that was used for auditing a projects status. I called it a Project Health Index. It asked the key questions and evaluated the team members, team performance, supplier performance, customer performance and provided an overall risk assessment of the project. These projects were all EPC, or EPCM regardless of T&M or Lumpsum. We always focused on what is best for the project Health. Healthy Projects Healthy Earnings. Other measures were made to determine company related issues. At the end of the day, it has been the main cause of a low score was a result of Team Interfaces/Communications issues. A good book is Industrial Megaprojects by Edward Merrow

    ------------------------------
    Vito Rotondi, (Retired)
    Arch. S.E. P.E. Life M ASCE
    Westmont Illinois
    ------------------------------



  • 23.  RE: Employee Performance Ratings

    Posted 08-29-2022 02:34 PM
    Vito:
    Thank you. I will have to do some research. I am curious as to how closely related it is to EVMS (Earn Value Management System). When I was started working as a CAM many moons ago, I worked with EVMS. I still have my book from a grad school class, Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling and Controlling by Harold Kerzner. I will check out Industrial Megaprojects. You have inspired me to go back thru my project management book.

    I have come to believe that a lot of project management systems and tools are only as good as the users, the data provided, and the commitment to implementation. Given most systems are not "smart" systems and only process the information provided, they can paint unattractive project pictures.  

    I look forward to your input on other topics given the breadth and depth of your experience and perspective. I will be looking for you. Thank you.

    ------------------------------
    James Williams P.E., M.ASCE
    Principal/Owner
    POA&M Structural Engineering, PLC
    Yorktown, VA
    ------------------------------



  • 24.  RE: Employee Performance Ratings

    Posted 08-29-2022 05:06 PM
    So Bill McAnally,
    Given we are now looking forward, glancing back, and then improving, might it be time for:

          An evaluation of the perceived behaviors of the C-Suite, Execs, Regional & Sr. MGRS.

    After all, studies emphasize the impact that group of individuals have with their behaviors.

    I'm sure they wish an impartial, independent survey of the impressions they make in the same areas for which others are evaluated
    might be quite telling.

    DISCLOSURE: I believe those who work below such organizational levels know the responses they would make.

    Wouldn't top mgt. also like to know?
    Cheers,
    Bill



    ------------------------------
    William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
    Buffalo, N.Y.

    "It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880
    ------------------------------



  • 25.  RE: Employee Performance Ratings

    Posted 08-31-2022 11:20 PM
    James:
    I remember Kerzner and I still may have one of his books buried somewhere. You are absolutely correct regarding Project Management Systems. They are glorified data bases and indeed are all data dependent. GIGO. So as with any software, one needs to kinda know the answers ahead of time. It is always the case. They handle complexity well but are not problem solvers. The analysis and understanding of the results require true experience to fix the problems. When a project is heading the wrong way, it is all about early identification of the issues. The early flags must go up to provide adequate time to develop recovery plans. Otherwise, one gets splatted by the oncoming train. Yes, splatted is an appropriate word. It happens. People are always the key. Training is imperative. Not only training in the mechanics, but more important in the communication inter discipline but more important cross functional teams. Including suppliers, clients and subcontractors. I cannot stress it enough and for me it has been a basis for hiring, evaluation as well as firing (in a kind way).

    ------------------------------
    Vito Rotondi, (Retired)
    Arch. S.E. P.E. Life M ASCE
    Westmont Illinois
    ------------------------------



  • 26.  RE: Employee Performance Ratings

    Posted 10-16-2022 10:33 AM
    I have not encountered this yet. The closest I have encountered was the annual performance review for an on-campus job I had for over two years.

    Although I am glad university classes could have been curves for grades because of how all students were doing, I am wondering just companies would have in mind regarding these "expected distribution[s]". I can only hope that when I encounter one, whoever's in charge of the rating system is keeping long-term goals for the company system in mind, and not treating the performance ratings as a means of separating employees into cubicles.

    ------------------------------
    Alexander Granato A.M.ASCE
    Student
    Bexley OH
    granato.3@...
    ------------------------------