Is your employer doing performance metrics?

[Granny Jill A]

I work for a public university, and my division has recently started requiring us to list our goals for the year. Performance metrics allow us to measure our progress toward the goals.

Or so the theory goes.....

Anyone out there done this?

[SallyMcQueen]

We have to list SMART goals each year. Each letter of smart stands for something, don't ask me what right now. Most of the time I'm making something up at the last minute. The type of job that I have is very difficult to set goals for, beyond show up for work, perform duties, go home and not kill anyone in the process.

Good luck. The goals part is always the hardest part of my self-evaluations.

[kakn7294]

Mine uses Press-Ganney scores (Patient Satisfaction Surveys) to evaluate us as a whole, not as individuals. We do a yearly individual evaluation where I review what my supervisor wrote about me and the HIPPA policy then I write out what I feel are my strengths, weaknesses, and goals and sign everything. It then gets placed in my permanent file and that's that. It never again sees the light of day.

[Ms. Mode]

Yes, I have been asked to do this, I have also been asked to fill out my own evaluation...how DUMB is that? OF COURSE I'm the best employee they've ever had :number1:

But really, I'm the same person they hired 20 years ago :)

[Mickey'sGirl]

S. Specific
M. Measurable
A. Achievable
R. Realistic
T. Time Bound

Tis the season for sure!

We have specific job-descriptions with specific performance considerations that are weighted in terms of relevance and importance to the position being evaluated.

I think its a fair and measurable way to assess an employee, but as the boss, it is A LOT of work.

[BMan62]

We have to list SMART goals each year. Each letter of smart stands for something, don't ask me what right now. Most of the time I'm making something up at the last minute. The type of job that I have is very difficult to set goals for, beyond show up for work, perform duties, go home and not kill anyone in the process.

Good luck. The goals part is always the hardest part of my self-evaluations.

Don't tell me...You work for Johnson Controls!! We do the same thing!

[clausjo]

I'm actually in the process of doing my writing my self review now to give to my supervisor. We'll be setting goals in the next couple of weeks. I find this to be very difficult because every year thar are projects that come up that get in the way of completing the goals. Ah well, there's nothing we can do.

[brad192]

My last employer REALLY bought into this junk. Luckily, I was a contract engineer & didn't need to participate.

I honestly believe that this is a contrivance of some HR consulting firms to enhance their validity (and bottom line). They are selling this as a way to "motivate & enhance employee performance."

Look, the bottom line is - the employee was hired to perform a specific task. If that employee fails to meet the goals & objectives outlined when they were hired, thet need to be dismissed, and a new candidate hired to fill the role. It's up to the managers to determine if this is the case. NOT some esoteric, contrived, and ineffectual software routine, or random rules dictated by a company who's sole business is to sell such nonsense to other companies.

It really is a shame that managers, project leaders, etc. are falling back upon such nonsense to justify their desicions in such matters. This includes companies as a whole.

C'mon - cowboy up & take some interest, involvment, responsibility when it comes to your employees. Stop passing the buck to software, or worse - the employees themselves. :mad:

[BigRedDad]

My employer does this. It is all BS. Performance ratings are based on how much your nose will break when the manager turns quickly. It has absolutely nothing to do with your performance or effectiveness. It has everything to do with how much you are paid, how much it will cost to get rid of you and how much it will cost to bring some one new in to do your job or move it overseas.

[meldan98]

My former employer really embraced the push for performance metrics. So much so that they enacted a 20-70-10 policy. Only 20% of each team within each department could be at Exceeds Expectations, 70% at Meets Expectations and 10% Does Not Meet Expectations. Those in the 10% would get written up and then in 90 days if they didn't "improve" they would be fired. It was their way of doing layoffs, without having to provide severence. Keep in mind our "teams" were sometimes as small as 10 people. Managers would make up stuff to keep the department within the numbers and the department team managers would have meetings and figure out who would be let go under the 10% and move people around so that their friends and family wouldn't get axed. It was horrible. So many really great workers got canned as a result.

[Granny Jill A]

Most of the time I'm making something up at the last minute. The type of job that I have is very difficult to set goals for, beyond show up for work, perform duties, go home and not kill anyone in the process.

Omygosh - I'm rolling on the floor. :rotfl::rotfl:

I thought I was the only one who felt that way. It's good to read all the comments, most of which are dubious about the whole "goals" process. I can definitely see it being useful for sales or production, something you can actually measure.

[Granny Jill A]

I honestly believe that this is a contrivance of some HR consulting firms to enhance their validity (and bottom line). They are selling this as a way to "motivate & enhance employee performance."

Look, the bottom line is - the employee was hired to perform a specific task. If that employee fails to meet the goals & objectives outlined when they were hired, thet need to be dismissed, and a new candidate hired to fill the role. It's up to the managers to determine if this is the case. NOT some esoteric, contrived, and ineffectual software routine, or random rules dictated by a company who's sole business is to sell such nonsense to other companies.


BINGO - you have hit the nail on the head, my friend. This is the way it was done before all this HR mumbo-jumbo infected the workplace.

[Goofy4TheWorld]

My former employer really embraced the push for performance metrics. So much so that they enacted a 20-70-10 policy. Only 20% of each team within each department could be at Exceeds Expectations, 70% at Meets Expectations and 10% Does Not Meet Expectations. Those in the 10% would get written up and then in 90 days if they didn't "improve" they would be fired. It was their way of doing layoffs, without having to provide severence. Keep in mind our "teams" were sometimes as small as 10 people. Managers would make up stuff to keep the department within the numbers and the department team managers would have meetings and figure out who would be let go under the 10% and move people around so that their friends and family wouldn't get axed. It was horrible. So many really great workers got canned as a result.

In college, one of my HR professors assigned our midterm exam grade (one-third of the final course grade) using this same idea. We all gave a presentation in groups of 5, and all groups were ranked in order by the class as a whole, with the end rankings at 20% got an A, 40% a B, 20% a C, 10% a D, and 10% an F.

It was an eye-opening example of how terrible a system this was to evaluate anything, and I never forgot it.