Conference 7.286::digital

    Nope, we haven't been told to do that in Software Engineering -- not
    yet anyway.

    RE.2
    
       I agree that there are indeed too many rumors in this company.
    I also heard the same rumor as in the base note.  However, the 
    seeming deluge of "rumors" these days is an apparent lack of honest
    two-way communication with our management structure.  And those at
    the very top are also not very forth-coming with the straight dope.
    
       Hence, the rumors.

If there is any truth to what .0 says it torpedoes the entire value of a
PA. If they want to change what effect (upon salary) the numbers may have,
that's fine. But if someone is clearly a '2' you don't force their evaluation
to become nearer to a '3'... unless of course you want to want to seek
new lows in employee morale.

Slavish attention to raw numbers will be this companys' undoing.

Lee

ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!

    Re. 2
    
    Believe me, I do not have time to start a rumor in this Notes
    Conference, or any where else.
    
    I was told this by my exmanager, who happened to do my review
    yesterday. I have not heard about this attempt myself, and thought
    that some people out there might know more than I do.

    re basenote:
    
    
    FWIW, I don't believe this is a rumor.  I was told the EXACT same
    thing by a manager in my organization.
    
    Mark.

    Sounds like a much needed adjustment to me.  We need to compensate for
    years of "inflation".  I spent many years in an organization (Ed Svcs)
    were if you were doing a good job you were rated in the 3's, and 2's
    were considered really something special.  I never saw a 1 and myself
    never awarded one in over ten years of management.
    
    I thought our system was excellent, but it did put our people in an
    uncomfortable position when being compared with folks from engineering,
    which in my opinion seemed to be out of control.
    
    Basically, if you get rated a "1" you ought to be looking for a more
    challenging job as you are overqualified for your present job.

    Don, I agree with your assessment of the situation, but would add
    one other comment...
    
    People (myself included) have to stop thinking of a 3 rating as
    a negative rating.  I don't know if the negative connotations of
    a 3 rating stem from an inflated rating system, but I do know that
    many people feel this way, when clearly it should be indicative
    of someone doing his/her job to his/her manager's expectations.
    
    Mark.

    Mark, I agree with you that most of us believe that 3 is not a good
    rating. But I believe that if there would be an adjustment of ratings
    in the company, it should be announced officially. 
    
    Less people would be shocked then maybe. Also, I'm not sure if all
    managers are aware of this new policy, which puts us in a situation
    where some people will still get higher ratings, and the ones whose
    ratings are not as high anymore, will believe that they are doing
    a less than average job, or they are doing something wrong. 
    
    Of course, getting a less % increase in salary won't help boost
    some morales either.
    

RE:  <<< Note 913.9 by WMOIS::D_MONTGOMERY "Irie" >>>

In our organization we have whole project teams working 80 hour
weeks for four months at a time in order to complete projects.  I'd
say that 80% of the people ARE exceeding their job requirements, unless
80 hr weeks are what Digital expects.

What happens if, after working all these hours, these people get
their reviews and many of them have 3s because personnel has said
only x% of an organization can have threes?  

One sad fact is that good people attract good people and average people
attract average people.  If reviews are to be based on across the board
percentage then average organizations are going to get a boost while
excelent ones are going to get the fickle finger.

A serious problem within Digital is that our bureaucracy does it's best
to to prevent people who do exceptional work from being rewarded.

John

    In sales, I have found it very difficult to get above a 3. I got a 1
    once, but 1's and 2's seem pretty hard to come by, even when I thought
    it was deserved. 
    
    However, the same managers that (for whatever reasons) hand out 3's to
    those that do a good job tell the sales force to ask our customers to
    rate Digital 9 or 10 (out of 10) on customer satisfaction surveys, if
    the company is doing a good job. Supposedly, a 5 or 6 is failing grade
    on these surveys. To me, this has always seemed like a double standard.
    I know the two are totally unrelated measurements of different things,
    but the disparity in where "good job" falls (relatively speaking) on
    the two scale has always seemed odd. 
    
    I think back to my days in school. If I did a good job, studied hard,
    did the assignments, and got good scores on the tests, I expected and
    got A's and B's. I dispised teachers who tried to make it next to
    impossible to get an A, though I didn't mind if it was a challenge to
    get one. 
    
    I disagree with those who think it should be next to impossible to get
    an A (1) at DEC. To me, it seems demoralizing. I think it should be
    possible for every employee, if they are willing to do A work, to get a
    1. To set quotas for 1's and 2's makes it impossible for the vast
    majority of the employees to get a good rating, no matter how hard they
    might work at it. 
    
    When I have raised this question before, the answer from my managers in
    the past has been that a 3 rating is a good rating and that anybody who
    gets a 3 ought to feel real good about it, because they are meeting the
    expectations of their job. Well, for me, it equates to a "C", which is
    "fair", but not "good". 
    
    This, of course, is all my opinion, which is obviously different than
    my employer's opinion about these things. But if I had a vote, I would
    vote for it to be the way that I have said: 1's and 2's ought to be
    challenging to get, but not near to impossible. I think it would
    be good for company morale, and would improve overall performance
    of our employees.

    Re .12..........If you're working 80-hours weeks, you should be getting
    some form of additional compensation, even if you are WC4.  The hours
    alone shouldn't necessarily have anything to do with inherent job
    performance.  HOWEVER,
    
         o The Manager (I use the word with some discomfort) who requires
    you and others to work those kinds of hours should be fired, and
    
         o Whoever did the planning for such as project should be rated
    a "5", if he or she has other redeeming qualities.

re:                <<< Note 913.9 by WMOIS::D_MONTGOMERY "Irie" >>>

    I wholeheartedly agree with you, Don, that the elimination of the "4"
    rating was, in fact, a very stupid move. In my years of management
    with DEC I have had several employees who, at one time or another,
    deserved this rating which said "Needs Improvement". They did _NOT_
    truly meet job requirements and so were not really 3's. However, at the
    same time, I could not honestly say that they failed to meet job
    requirements and were thus 5's, which would have put a very negative
    statement in their personal file, prevented them from seeking other
    job opportunities, and/or required that they be placed under
    corrective action plans for unsatisfactory performance. These people,
    as the rating said, simply "needed improvement" in order to be
    honestly rated as "meeting the requirements of the job". Especially
    for someone new to, and learning a job, this rating is reasonable,
    in my opinion. I'd like to see it brought back. It clearly states
    to all parties involved, without any chance for misinterpretation,
    that the employee needs to work on some things.

re: quotas for 2's and 3's

    I have never seen any instances of this being suggested or implemented.
    What I have seen is cases where particular groups or cost centers
    have had to justify why they feel they have a far higher percentage
    of 1's and 2's than the norm. I think this is a reasonable investigative
    effort.

re: the base note

    I agree with Ken in .1, that at least in Engineering there has been
    nary a hint of such a practice being suggested. Personally, I don't
    know how it could be accomplished (i.e. what do you downgrade the
    3's to?), nor _what_ it would accomplish, anymore than what eliminating
    the 4 rating accomplished (i.e. nothing).

    -Jack

    It seems to me that at the beginning of the rating period any manager
    should be able to define precisely the performance that is required
    to get a "1", "2" or "3" rating, with measurable objectives against
    which the employee can "test" him/herself.  If you accomplish the
    "1" rated goals, then you get a "1".  At least then you would be
    able to make the decision yourself whether the effort to get that
    "1" was worth the prize.
    
    In the past I've been told by a manager that no matter what I did
    I would get a "3", because whatever I did was "expected" behavior!
    So, if I saved the company $1M per year, that was a "3"; I was expected
    to do that.  If I saved the company $10M per year, that was a "3",
    because THAT was expected behavior (I was meeting expectations!).
    He was unable to define any behavior from me that would result in
    a higher rating.  I no longer work for that manager.
    
    Bill

re -1

>    It seems to me that at the beginning of the rating period any manager
>    should be able to define precisely the performance that is required
>    to get a "1", "2" or "3" rating, with measurable objectives against
>    which the employee can "test" him/herself.  If you accomplish the
>    "1" rated goals, then you get a "1".  At least then you would be
>    able to make the decision yourself whether the effort to get that
>    "1" was worth the prize.
    
	That sounds like a great idea to me!  The way the rating system
has been explained by my manager to me is that your rating correlates
to your job description - no matter how much you produce, put in
extra effort, overtime etc., you are still a 3 unless you start doing
things in the job description above your current position.  Furthermore,
if your job goals are aimed at doing your current job to the best of your
ability and you meet these goals then you are a 3.  

	Assuming that my manager has understands the rating system (and I
know they asked personnel about it in great detail) aren't there some
serious deficiencies in this system?  Doesn't this enforce the Peter
Principle?  What do you do - set your job goals low so you can exceed
them?  Where does this lead the person who is happy with his/her job, 
performs it well, and doesn't want the responsibilities of the next 
position up?  Assuming that ratings correlate to $ as well as promotions,
does this mean that DEC only pays for AMBITION/performance and that
outstanding performance alone doesn't cut it?

	Your suggestion of tying the performance ratings directly to 
measurable and potentially achievable goals would certainly help 
employees feel more comfortable with the rating system.

jim

    It *MAY* have happened in New Jersey - although it would be *VERY*
    difficult to prove.
    

    In many cases, the primary difference between levels is the amount
    of responsibility. If I'm a "category x - level I" and exceed my
    job description (and get rated 1 or 2), if I'm promoted to level
    II, the  ** EXACT SAME WORK **  may only be rated a 3, simply because
    the new level expects more of me.
    
    This, IMHO, is how it should be.
    
    	/Marvin

RE: .17 
    
    > It seems to me that at the beginning of the rating period any manager
    > should be able to define precisely the performance that is required to
    > get a "1", "2" or "3" rating, with measurable objectives against which
    > the employee can "test" him/herself.  If you accomplish the "1" rated
    > goals, then you get a "1".  At least then you would be able to make the
    > decision yourself whether the effort to get that "1" was worth the
    > prize.
    
    I don't think it's that simple.  I believe there is no employee in
    Digital who is capable of *earning* a 1 rating consistently (well, Ken
    maybe...  (^;}.  That is because I think 1's should be reserved for
    super-stars, and being a super-star often involves some luck as well as
    skill, dedication, etc.  For example, in the field, in order to be a
    super-star a sales support specialist needs a big sales opportunity. 
    No, I wouldn't rate somebody a 1 because they do a real good job at
    helping to close 10 $50K opportunities in a 6-month period -- not
    unless business was *real* bad, that is!  No, the super-star is the one
    who's instrumental in closing a large piece of business and who goes
    above and beyond the call of duty to do so.  Now, if that person
    doesn't have a big'un come along during a 6-month rating period (which
    *will* happen eventually), then the person can't realistically be rated
    a 1 for that period.
    
    Now, it's not nearly as simple as I've described it either.  But I had
    to use a concrete example to make my point.  I won't say it's
    impossible for a sales support specialist to be rated a 1 without
    closing a large piece of business;  doing an outstanding job at
    DECworld might earn the rating, for example.  But in order to get
    *that* rating, the person must be assigned to DECworld and have a
    challenging assignment.
    
    I believe the cream of the crop will surface eventually, but I don't
    agree that a manager can always sit down with an employee at the
    beginning of a rating period and say "If you do this and this and this
    you'll be a 1."
    
    > In the past I've been told by a manager that no matter what I did I
    > would get a "3", because whatever I did was "expected" behavior! So, if
    > I saved the company $1M per year, that was a "3"; I was expected to do
    > that.  If I saved the company $10M per year, that was a "3", because
    > THAT was expected behavior (I was meeting expectations!). He was unable
    > to define any behavior from me that would result in a higher rating.  I
    > no longer work for that manager.
    
    Absolutely unbelievable!  I don't blame you, I'd have found another
    manager too.
    
    							Pat

    Speaking as someone who is not a manager, who is not involved with
    personnel, and, I guess, your basic, paper-pushing, 40 hr a week
    employee, I think the rating system should be like this:
    
    1's are for people who perform both job expectations and that above
    and beyond the call of duty all the time, in all areas.  In a five
    point system, a 1 would equate to an A in school--you excel.  Maybe
    this means you can move onto more challenging positions, or maybe
    it means you just do YOUR job extremely well.  It should NOT mean,
    "what are you doing in this job, you are overqualified".  Lots of
    people do really good in their jobs, and like it that way--doesn't 
    mean they should be shoved along to other things they may not want
    to do.  
    
    2's would then signify a person who performs job expectations and
    things above and beyond the duty most of the time, but not in all
    areas, not all the time, but certainly enough to be recognized for
    it.
    
    3 is one who performs their job expectations in a manner that is
    sufficeint to say they do the job.  Not bad, but not exceptional
    in a 2 and 1 sort of way.  If the majority of reviews come out to
    be a 3, that would suggest the company has a majority of people
    who do their jobs right.  If the ratings are higher, say a 2 and
    1 and there are a lot of them, instead of worrying that the rating
    percentage is 'off', DEC should take pride in having so many
    exceptional workers (after verifying the ratings are justified).
    
    4's would be exactly what it used to be--needs improvement.  The
    employee is not performing their job expecations in most or all
    ways and needs to improve on job performance, or be moved into a
    position they are better suited to (be it inside or outside DEC).
    This is not Good.  :)
    
    5's, I imagine, would suggest termination, at least from that job.
    Extremely poor performance, due to behavior problems or what have
    you.  In a five point system, this would certainly be a big, fat
    F.  Not nice at all, but it would be difficult to pull a 5 on your
    review without having some idea you are in trouble already.
    
    Maybe this is too simplistic for Corporate America--I don't know.
    I am not, nor probably never will be, an executive type.  But I
    would think reveiw ratings would not be such a controversy.  The
    trick is to make them consistant-- a perfectly adequate job and
    little else should consistantly rate a 3, no matter who the person
    is.  
    
    kim

Job "expectations" are negotiable between a person and his supervisor,
so the proposal that goals for reaching a 3 or a 2 ought to be almost
automatic.  I concur that predicting what it takes to be a 1 is more 
difficult.
Yes, the 4 ought to be reinstated.  Falling short of one's expectations
is not necessarily a failure.  Risk taking is supposed to be a part of
the Corporate culture.  Almost by definition, risk means that sometimes
you will fail.  Absence of 4 means that expectations have to be set 
artificially low, or that the review process has to inflate performance
to a 2 for meeting so 3 can be reserved for "close enough."
Bringing back the 4 will help head off the Peter Principle process,
where people have to get promoted in the face of all those 2's
that really should have been 3's.

- tom]

If some groups get all 1's (greatly exceeds expectations) and 2's (exceeds
expectations), that just means to me that the manager has low expectations for
the group.

Does anybody know why the 4 was dropped from the ratings?

Vicki Meagher

    > Does anybody know why the 4 was dropped from the ratings?
    
    I was told that Personnel felt that lilly-livered managers were using
    4's when they should be using 5's because they could assign a rating of
    4 without having to face the possibility of firing somebody.  That's
    obviously a paraphrase of what I was *actually* told (^;.  'Course any
    manager who was doing that probably just assigns 3's to his poor
    performers now, so I doubt that it solved anything at all.
    
    							Pat

    Why would two flavors of poor performance ratings be needed?  A
    4 meant "needs improvement" and 5 means "does not meet expectations".
    So?  Both mean the recipient is not doing their job.  Both mean
    the recipient is ineligible for promotion or raise.
    
    Given what the numbers (as opposed to the qualitative aspects of
    a performance evaluation) are primarily used for, i.e. salary planning,
    no benefit was to be had by keeping the 4.
    
    As far as deflation of ratings goes, it makes sense *up to a point*.
    When dealing with large groups of people, many organizations
    "totem-pole" their employees.  This involves a once-a-year ranking 
    of the entire population of employees by performance from top to 
    bottom.  The top performers get raises and promotions; the ones on 
    the bottom get nothing.  The salary planning process at Digital is 
    not unlike this.
    
    When you look at relatively large organization, say Manufacturing,
    Engineering, an Area, or perhaps even a district, you should expect
    to see a normal (not in the strict statistical sense) distribution
    of performance.  This presumes that, on the whole, you are properly
    managing employees by setting goals that present sufficient challenge.
    Since performance ratings are, by definition, determined basically 
    by how well people do when compared to their peers (in the sense
    that the "mean" performance of those who hold a given job title
    constitutes the job description), I would expect to see discernable
    patterns that could lead to a set of quotas.
    
    When you look at small organizations, this no longer holds true.
    A group consisting of 8 or 10 (or whatever) people may very well 
    consist of people who do not perform according to the normal curve,
    and who are not representative of the entire population. Attempting 
    to apply a quota to a group this size is plain idiocy.
    
    Al
    

Gosh, I don't think ratings need to be deflated. 

I've had managers tell me that they almost never give out 1s. And I have
had some tell me that short of working 80 hour weeks for months at a time,
there was no way that I could get a 1. So I have had to settle for 2s in
some cases even when I think I have far exceeded the requirements of my job
for that evaluation period. 

But, I've given up worrying about the difference between 1s and 2s; as far
as my career goes, I think folks will focus more on the actual
accomplishments rather than spending too much time on the difference
between the numbers 1 and 2. 

However, 3's are a totally different matter.

    
    Could someone please clarify what this "rating" is all about ?
    
    Is the rating system wholely corporate wide? 
    
    The reason I ask is that this is the first time I have heard
    of this system.I assumed that your "reward" was based on
    your performance and then a percentage raise in salary in
    accordance with that performance.Obviously taking into consideration
    budget restraints, the manager could then decide how much extra he could
    afford to "part with".
                                                       
    If the rating system does exist for all corporate sites,then what
    are the percentage thresholds for each rating ?
    
    I think that surely the financial reward would be a better indication 
    of your performance,.....nes pas?
    
    Better a 10 % increase rated at 3 , than a 5 % rating on 2  !
                                     

RE:          <<< Note 913.28 by AYOV18::OPS "1,2,3..easy as a,b,c...!" >>>
>    Better a 10 % increase rated at 3 , than a 5 % rating on 2  !

I think you mean 3.5 % for a 3 and 3.7 % for a 2.

    re: Removal of "4"
    
    I don't think the "4" is really a needed rating, and its perception
    on a 1-5 scale was never really good.  "Four!  That's worse than
    Three!".
    
    If your management is doing its own job properly, and you are in a
    position where you require training or other assistance to come up to
    speed, they should know that and factor it into how you will be rated.
    Then, if your progress is satisfactory, you get a 3, if you are coming
    up to speed more quickly than expected you get a 2, and if you
    instantly become the acknowledged world expert in the field about two
    hours after cracking the manual the first time you are definitely a
    1.  (And probably REALLY annoying to the rest of us, too.-))
    
    After you have completed the agreed-on training period, your manager
    should then shift to rating you as a "regular".  This both avoids the
    pitfalls of using "4" inappropriately AND makes explicit the need for
    training when someone moves into a higher level job that they may lack
    certain experience for or into a job at the same level with different
    requirements.
    
    /Dave

    
    	Having recieved a "1", I can speak from experience when I say that
    	it's not easy to get. In my case, I was a WC2 Engineer Aide
    	performing the job responsibilities of a WC4 Engineer II.  All 
    	agreed that I did my job well and exceeded my classification by
    	light years.
    
    	Personally I feel the rating was well deserved.
    
    	
    	/prc

    I probably would have little trouble in defining, on paper, what an
    "exceeds requirements/2" rating would look like... I think that trying
    to define what a "1" rating looks like would be very difficult; to me,
    a person deserves a 1 rating if they have redefined the job by their
    performance. [On paper, a 1 definition reads, "Excellent - consistently
    and significantly exceeds most major goals/expectations.  Provides
    leadership/guidance to others."]
    
    Marge

    Re: [.26]:
    
    >> Why would two flavors of poor performance ratings be needed? A
    >> 4 meant "needs improvement" and 5 means "does not meet expectations."
    >> So? Both mean the recipient is not doing their job.  Both mean
    >> the recipient is ineligible for promotion or raise.
    
    Let's all do the rhetorical exercise of reversing this statement:
    
    	Why would two flavors of good performance ratings be needed? A 2
    	means "exceeds expectations" and 1 means "far exceeds expectations."
    	So?  Both mean the recipient is doing (their) jobb.  Both mean the
    	recipient is eligible for promotion or raise.
    
    The present system leaves three flavors of "pass" but only one for
    "fail."  For the sake of symmetry alone, a 4 seems necessary as a
    rating.  Besides, it allows a subtler "flavor" in a review: "You didn't
    do what was expected of you, but we expect this is only an abberation"
    as opposed to "You really screwed up, and if you don't shape up we'll
    ship you out!" (these interpretations strictly for amusement only)

    Re: .24:
    
>    If some groups get all 1's (greatly exceeds expectations) and 2's
>    (exceeds expectations), that just means to me that the manager has
>    low expectations for the group.                          
    
    Vicki,
    
    I wish you had the chance to work in my group. I'd do my best to
    disabuse you of the notion that all 1s and 2s means I have low
    expectations of my people.  Have you ever heard of the Pygmalion
    effect?

>    The present system leaves three flavors of "pass" but only one for
>    "fail."  For the sake of symmetry alone, a 4 seems necessary as a
>    rating.  Besides, it allows a subtler "flavor" in a review: "You didn't
>    do what was expected of you, but we expect this is only an abberation"
>    as opposed to "You really screwed up, and if you don't shape up we'll
>    ship you out!" (these interpretations strictly for amusement only)

This topic came up at our group meeting this morning, where our manager told
us that "4" was again a permitted rating.

/john

    re: .33, .35
    
    Look at what the numbers are used for: salary planning and promotions.
    Why is symmetry needed?  I can make a case that more numbers are needed
    to quantify good performance than bad because we dole out raises and 
    promotions in an amount proportional to the degree which employees
    meet or exceed job expectations.  On the other hand, we don't give out 
    ANY raises or promotions for those who don't meet job expectations, 
    whether by a small or large margin.
    
    A rating scale of one to five (or four) is by itself far too
    simplistic for use as a meaningful _performance_ evaluation.  I'll
    grant you that in terms of setting goals and expectations, people
    who are rated less than satisfactory need to know how far off the
    mark they are.  Getting a '4' instead of a '5' is NOT the way to
    convey that information.  A PA must deliver sufficient data to the 
    employee, and this needs to be more qualititative then quantitative.
    
    Al
    

    RE: Inflation ... I've heard of the Lake Wobegon effect "where all
    the children are above average ..." but don't see how it could
    be eliminated.  The real problem is lack of consistency as pointed
    out earlier.  My (theoretical) 3 rating may well be harder earned
    than your 2.  But tell that to the manager from a third organization
    who will choose his/her next hire from between the two of us!
    
    Given the corporations recent attempt at equity called JEC, I wouldn't
    be surprised to hear that some misguided soul had commisioned,
    on the heels of JEC's "success", developmnent of a program to
    de-inflate ratings.  Good luck to us all!
    
    Steve 

RE .8:

>>>    I spent many years in an organization (Ed Svcs)
>>>    were if you were doing a good job you were rated in the 3's, and 2's
>>>    were considered really something special.

This looks like Edu management's view of life to me. I once taught an Edu
(customer) course to do the right thing (two weeks to go and nobody else
was available). It was the first time I'd ever lectured, and the first time
I'd ever been face to face with a customer (since my days as a customer
engineer in Field Service). Imagine my joy to get about 50% on the all-important
"course critique" - and then be heavily criticised by Edu management for doing
a lousy job!

It was at that time that I learned (from a kindly instructor who taught me the
Edu facts of life) that the "adequate" column on those critiques is not mid
range. In fact to get an acceptable critique, you need to score "good" *on
average* (the second best rating). Of course, all the instructors make a point
of explaining this to the students, who then oblige by uprating their critiques.
Does this remind anyone of the Customer Satisfaction Survey? ("If you don't
give me a 9.9 I won't get a raise and my children will starve...")

re .12:


>>>  One sad fact is that good people attract good people and average people
>>>  attract average people.  If reviews are to be based on across the board
>>>  percentage then average organizations are going to get a boost while
>>>  excellent ones are going to get the fickle finger.

>>>  A serious problem within Digital is that our bureaucracy does its best
>>>  to prevent people who do exceptional work from being rewarded.

Right on! This is an extremely valuable insight. This is the effect bureaucracy
always has - to level out the peaks and troughs. Unfortunately, it's the peak
performers who add most of the value in the long run. Average performers can
turn in a decent year, but over several years the company would gradually
go into a nosedive without the heroes who really go for it.
   
re .17:
 
>>>    In the past I've been told by a manager that no matter what I did
>>>    I would get a "3", because whatever I did was "expected" behavior!

While this idea naturally outrages a lot of us, there is a school of thought
about quality which maintains that quality consists of delivering exactly
what you promise, on time, within budget, etc. - without fail. That is
consistent with this idea that you cannot exceed expectations (or, rather,
that it's not necessarily good if you do). How, then, would such a system
reward those who promise, and deliver, a lot? The way sales people are
currently measured seems to fit the bill - you negotiate a "budget" at the
beginning of a period (year, quarter, etc). Then you get measured on
delivering EXACTLY WHAT YOU PROMISED. One refinement - you can renegotiate
what you commit to. This avoids the scenario where you deliver in two months
and have to spend the third month reading Notes to avoid overdelivering.
Realistically, that's an unlikely scenario anyway!

/Tom
 

re:         <<< Note 913.36 by POCUS::KOZAKIEWICZ "Shoes for industry" >>>

>    mark they are.  Getting a '4' instead of a '5' is NOT the way to
>    convey that information.  A PA must deliver sufficient data to the 
>    employee, and this needs to be more qualititative then quantitative.

    Al, I agree with this only up to a point. That being, it's very true
    that the PA must deliver sufficient data to the employee. It must
    spell out what's wrong and what has to change, or how it's perceived
    that it can be fixed. But that's where my agreement ends. I very
    seriously believe that you convey four entirely different messages
    with 2, 3, 4, and 5.

    As Marge said earlier, I'm not sure I can define a 1. I've personally
    never felt that I've deserved one (nor have I gotten one!), I've
    never had anyone reporting to me that deserved one, and I don't
    really think I've ever known or worked with anyone who deserved one
    according to my perception of what a 1 ought to be. But I can very
    easily characterize the other four ratings.

    I'd prefer not to get into any detail on how I differentiate between
    2's and 3's for obvious reasons. But as someone else has stated (I
    think it was Steve Jong), there is a big difference between 4 and 5.
    To me, 4 says - "Look, we have a discrepency here between
    what you're delivering and what I'm expecting, but I feel that you
    just need to do some work to improve and I'm confident that you'll
    be able to. This rating is to signify that we both understand what
    needs to happen. I'll do whatever I can to support and to help you."
    On the other hand, 5 says - "You've screwed up royally and I have
    grave concerns about your ability to handle this job. It's imperative
    that you correct this problem or you'll be out on your ear. You are
    not eligble to seek other employment within DEC at this time."

    For what it's worth, there was a policy in P&P which was written
    in May of 1978. It's since been pulled (superceded?). The new
    policy 3.03 is called Salary Management. The old one was called
    Compensation Policies and Procedures and talked in general about
    Salary Reviews and Salary Planning. It included the following
    Defininitions of the five performance ratings, which I think
    are well worded and which always guide my rating of employees.

	"EXCEPTIONAL - Employee's performance far exceeds job factors
	 in all key areas.

	 EXCEEDS JOB REQUIREMENTS - Employee's performance consistently
	 exceeds the requirements of the job.

	 MEETS JOB REQUIREMENTS - Employee meets all the job requirements
	 and, at times, may have exceeded requirements.

	 REQUIRES DEVELOPMENT - Employee is learning job requirements;
	 needs coaching and training to develop full competence.

	 FAILS TO MEET REQUIREMENTS - Employee is a marginal performer
	 and has demonstrated basic inability to do the job; continued
	 poor performance is enough to justify release or reassignment."

    At the inception of this policy, the changebars in the printed text
    indicate that the description for 5 had been modified from the
    previous version. That was before my time, though. Perhaps someone
    who's been around longer and has an orange book from prior to May
    1978 (and who, like me, never throws away the old policies), could tell
    us what 5 said before that.

    -Jack

    < Note 913.39 by 16BITS::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dog face)" >

>    To me, 4 says - "Look, we have a discrepency here between
>    what you're delivering and what I'm expecting, but I feel that you
>    just need to do some work to improve and I'm confident that you'll
>    be able to. This rating is to signify that we both understand what
>    needs to happen. I'll do whatever I can to support and to help you."
>    On the other hand, 5 says - "You've screwed up royally and I have
>    grave concerns about your ability to handle this job. It's imperative
>    that you correct this problem or you'll be out on your ear. You are
>    not eligble to seek other employment within DEC at this time."

    You see, if no written, qualitative assessment was done as part
    of a performance appraisal, you would be correct.  But since it
    is required, and it conveys that information, the numbers are not
    needed *for that purpose*.  Look at what the numbers are used for:
    to plan and award promotions and salary actions.  That's it!  Since
    no rating below a 3 deserves either, you only need one number.  It 
    really is that simple.
    
    As far as what it was like 10 years ago, I'm not sure what it matters.
    Remember, measurements and rewards are tightly interrelated.  You cannot
    compare today's measurement system to yesterdays in a meaningful
    way without also considering differences in rewards.  What was the
    effect of a 4 or 5 on an employees chances for raise or promotion?
    If there was none, one number or the other was meaningless.  If
    there was a difference, you can't bring back the 4 without restoring
    it's associated reward.
    
    Al
    

re: .40

I disagree somewhat with you, a "5" pretty much means that not only
are you not going to get a raise but, you are darn close to getting
canned. A "4" should mean that you are not getting a raise because
of some unforeseen and understandable circumstance. Now, IMHO
because of the lack of the "4" managers are reluctant to give a "5" in those
cases that really rated a "4" so, a "3" is given along with a raise.

Just my opinion....

- George

    re: .41
    
    You are welcome to your opinion, but it is only that.  The facts
    are quite another story.  The meaning of a '5', as stated in the
    Salary Management guide:
    
      Does not meet job requirements
    
    		- Does not meet goals/expectations
    		- Requires significant management attention
    		- Is not eligible for salary action unless or until
    		  performance improves.
    
      Does not meet job requirements should be used only for employees
      who are not meeting the established goals or expectations.  No salary
      increase should be planned for these employees.  Performance reviews
      should continue to take place so that the employees can be made
      aware of performance issues and corrective action can be planned.
      Until these employees improve their performance to meet the
      requirements of their jobs, they should not be granted any salary
      increases.
    
    It does NOT say that you are close to being canned, although that
    is certainly within the realm of possibilities. It says you are
    not measuring up to the job.  The *degree* to which you fail to
    measure up needs to be quantified through a comprehensive performance 
    appraisal and job plan, not a pair of silly numbers.
    
    I'll repeat it again: The number is used ONLY for salary and promotion
    planning.  In this context, '4'(or more specifically, the *difference*
    between a '5' and a '4') is meaningless.
    
    Perhaps if '5' was replaced by '4' (so that there wasn't a gap in
    the ratings while retaining the 4 classifications) people wouldn't 
    get so hung up on the numbers.
    
    Al

    

    I gather that the "reward" for a 4 was not to be fired.
    
    I'll bet I know the answer to this one, but if there's no need for two
    silly numbers to measure failure, why is there a need for two silly
    numbers to measure success?

re: .42

>    I'll repeat it again: The number is used ONLY for salary and promotion
>    planning.  In this context, '4'(or more specifically, the *difference*
>    between a '5' and a '4') is meaningless.
    
I strongly disagree with this.  The '4' should be used to send a message to
the employee that their performance needs significant improvement without
necessarily indicating that their performance is totally unsatisfactory.  In
addition, a '4' performer should be able to get a well below average raise AND
should be able to look for a more suitable job within the company, neither
of which should be options for a '5'.  To me a '5' means that the person
should be on corrective action plan, with all the documentation requirements
and special attention (from the manager) associated with that.

The '3' rating should be a positive one: "you are getting the job done that we
expected you to do".  What happens now is that people who have significant
performance deficiencies but who are still able to meet some of their job
expectations get lumped in with the honorable '3' folk, because the rigamarole
of corrective action is not really justified under the circumstances.  I've
received one '3' in the past that I KNOW would've been a '4' if that rating
had been available to my supervisor--and it should've been!  But a '5' would
have been totally wrong, especially when looking at this period in retrospect
(since I was usually very highly rated before that and since I have been very
highly rated since then).

So I agree with whoever it was that said that the '4' rating leaves you room
to fail because of risk-taking or overestimating what you can handle.  As long
as everyone isn't in that mode, there's some benefit to the company in leaving
an out to people who err in that way.  Maybe the rule should be that you can't
get two consecutive '4' ratings--after the first one it's understood that you
are either going to: improve to a generally satisfactory level of performance,
find a new job somewhere else in or out of the company, or be put on warning.

By the way, regarding the quote at the beginning, there are a lot of factors
that a manager has to take into account when doing salary and promotion
planning beyond what an employee's rating "number" is.  That's an altogether
too complex topic to get into here.  Suffice it to say that I don't buy your
assertion: the rating, the raise and the promotion do not necessarily dictate
one another, but ALL are dependent upon my evaluation of the employee's
performance, value to the group (NOT necessarily the same as performance!),
effort, and the fairness of their current job level and salary compensation.
Having the '4' rating back as an option makes a lot of sense to me.
								paul

re:    < Note 913.44 by CGHUB::CONNELLY "Eye Dr3 -- Regnad Kcin" >

>I strongly disagree with this.  The '4' should be used to send a message to
>the employee that their performance needs significant improvement without
>necessarily indicating that their performance is totally unsatisfactory.  In
>addition, a '4' performer should be able to get a well below average raise AND
>should be able to look for a more suitable job within the company, neither
>of which should be options for a '5'.  
    
    Any manager who needs to rely a numeric scale containing exactly
    two numbers in order to tell an underperforming employee how far
    off the mark they are shouldn't be a manager.  
        
    An employee who is not meeting the minimum expectations for a job
    does not deserve a raise (by definition, they don't deserve their 
    current salary) no matter how small.
    
>By the way, regarding the quote at the beginning, there are a lot of factors
>that a manager has to take into account when doing salary and promotion
>planning beyond what an employee's rating "number" is.  That's an altogether
>too complex topic to get into here.  Suffice it to say that I don't buy your
>assertion: the rating, the raise and the promotion do not necessarily dictate
>one another, but ALL are dependent upon my evaluation of the employee's
>performance, value to the group (NOT necessarily the same as performance!),
>effort, and the fairness of their current job level and salary compensation.

    To say that the only thing the performance numbers are used for
    is salary and promotion planning is NOT THE SAME as saying salary
    and promotion planning are dependent solely upon performance numbers.
    I stated the former, not the latter, and stand by it.  
    
    What the number IS NOT and SHOULD NOT be used for is to tell 
    underperforming employees how bad they are doing.  THAT is is the 
    purpose of the performance APPRAISAL not the performance RATING.
    
>Having the '4' rating back as an option makes a lot of sense to me.
    
    Only if you eliminate the '5'.
    
    Al

	Hmmmm, after some thought, I tend to agree that a 4 is not
	needed.. Any good manager should work with their employee in
	letting them know how they are doing. If they are doing "4" work
	then a good manager should tell them LONG before their review so
	that they may work out the problem. (Or say screw it, whichever)

	Maybe good managers are hard to find?

								mike

re: .45
    
>    Any manager who needs to rely a numeric scale containing exactly
>    two numbers in order to tell an underperforming employee how far
>    off the mark they are shouldn't be a manager.  

I feel like you're saying this is a totally black-and-white/either-or issue,
and I can't agree.  The number rating and the text BOTH help to send the
message that the manager may want to convey.  There is no sharp dividing line
between meeting the requirements of a job and failing to meet the requirements
of a job.  One may meet some requirements and fail to meet others.  The
numeric ratings should reflect this continuum.

>    An employee who is not meeting the minimum expectations for a job
>    does not deserve a raise (by definition, they don't deserve their 
>    current salary) no matter how small.

Not meeting the minimum expectations is different from not meeting some
important expectations while also meeting others.  Your argument seems to
be based on bringing up examples of '5' performers and stating that they
demonstrate why there should be no '4' rating.  I don't buy it.
    
>    To say that the only thing the performance numbers are used for
>    is salary and promotion planning is NOT THE SAME as saying salary
>    and promotion planning are dependent solely upon performance numbers.
>    I stated the former, not the latter, and stand by it.  

And I just said that I don't use performance numbers solely for salary and
promotion planning.  Would you care to qualify your statement as an opinion
or quote the relevant sections of personnel policy that back it up?
    
>    What the number IS NOT and SHOULD NOT be used for is to tell 
>    underperforming employees how bad they are doing.  THAT is is the 
>    purpose of the performance APPRAISAL not the performance RATING.
    
Again, I see no reason why one would not use the rating to communicate at a
summary level what an employee's performance is being viewed as.  If the
numeric rating itself offends you, why pick on the '4'?  Let's leave the
'1', '2', '3' and '5' off the performance review also and communicate strictly
via text.  Then managers can keep it hidden away for their own arcane
planning purposes, if that's the only value it has.
							paul

re: .46
>	Hmmmm, after some thought, I tend to agree that a 4 is not
>	needed.. Any good manager should work with their employee in
>	letting them know how they are doing. If they are doing "4" work
>	then a good manager should tell them LONG before their review so
>	that they may work out the problem. (Or say screw it, whichever)

That seems a bit idealistic to me, Mike, although I do wish it worked
that way.  What if the person just plain CAN'T work out the problem in
time?  What if you see them working 60-70 hours a week trying to correct
the situation and yet they're only able to deliver 60% of what they were
expected to do?  Do you say, "Oh, well, they really tried and they did
get a majority of the stuff done even though they messed up on sizable
portion of it--I'll give 'em a '3' and use the text of their review to
suggest that they switch to a different career path"?  Or do you say,
"Hey, life is not fair, they did meet some of the expectations but they
didn't meet all of them, so I have to stay with the letter of the law and
give them a '5' and put them on corrective action"?

If you don't believe that the numeric ratings are intended to communicate
anything to the employee (see .-1) then I guess it's all irrelevant.  But
even then who gets the 0% raise: both the person who met 0% of their
commitments AND the person who did meet 90% of their commitments but who
failed to meet 10%?  Shall we treat them both the same?  Should both of
them be put on corrective action plans?  I realize this is a exaggerated
example, but there is a continuum of performance.  Our discrete, tangible
rewards (rating numbers, raise percentages and intervals, promotions, etc.)
should reflect this continuum.  (Just my opinion, of course.)
							paul

       
       
       	Stop confusing me Paul.. :-) :-)  Seriously, I guess I am
       idealistic. In my view, a manager should be on top of situations
       like this. I only hope that if I'm ever in management, I can
       live up to my own ideals. Sounds like it's not gonna be easy..
       
       							mike

Re: "No 4's"

Maybe we should send out our customer surveys with the following numeric scale:

        10   9   8   7   6   5   0

Then if we goof up a little the customer can decide whether a rating of
'average' (5) is warranted or a rating of 'total failure' (0). After all,
you're either doing the job or you're not!! ;^)

If a "Room for improvement" doesn't belong on an employee evaluation then
it certainly doesn't belong on a customer survey. Most managers would
accept a '0' rating from a customer if they couldn't have a '5' or
above.... right?  ;^)

Lee

re:    < Note 913.47 by CGHUB::CONNELLY "Eye Dr3 -- Regnad Kcin" >

>I feel like you're saying this is a totally black-and-white/either-or issue,
>and I can't agree.  The number rating and the text BOTH help to send the
>message that the manager may want to convey.  There is no sharp dividing line
>between meeting the requirements of a job and failing to meet the requirements
>of a job.  One may meet some requirements and fail to meet others.  The
>numeric ratings should reflect this continuum.
    
    Again, I ask why?  If you've done your job with the performance
    evaluation, isn't the number entirely superfluous?  It serves a
    useful purpose as an objective criteria for "totem-poling" employees
    at salary planning time, as a gate for excellence awards and as
    means of assessing eligibility for promotion.  Beyond that, it is
    entirely too simplistic to rely on it as a significant conveyor
    of information to an employee who needs to understand not what number
    he received, but WHY.  It is your job as a manager to use some
    intelligence and judgement to finesse the system and make sure the
    right thing is done.

>Not meeting the minimum expectations is different from not meeting some
>important expectations while also meeting others.  Your argument seems to
>be based on bringing up examples of '5' performers and stating that they
>demonstrate why there should be no '4' rating.  I don't buy it.
    
    No, that's not what I meant.  An employee who is not meeting all
    of the minimum requirements for a job does not deserve a raise.
    I think that is self-evident.  If you accept the fact that the
    performance rating is used solely as a gate for salary actions and
    such, and that the gate is a pass/fail, then it becomes obvious that 
    only a single number is necessary for failure.
    
    Also remember that we pay for performance, not for effort.  Results
    are what count, at least as far as raises are concerned.

>And I just said that I don't use performance numbers solely for salary and
>promotion planning.  Would you care to qualify your statement as an opinion
>or quote the relevant sections of personnel policy that back it up?
    
    Since there is no '4' currently, how do you use the current numbering
    scheme for anything but salary and promotion planning?
    
>Again, I see no reason why one would not use the rating to communicate at a
>summary level what an employee's performance is being viewed as.  
    
    I'm not against the rating system, as long as we use it for it's
    intended purpose.  And I would submit that an employee deserves
    better than having his/her performance communicated at a summary
    level.
    
    Al

Al,

  I don't think anyone here disagrees with your contention that the text of the
performance appraisal should convey the message rather than the summary rating.
God only knows that when my upper management reads the appraisals I write for
my employees they expect the text to justify the number.

  But the fact remains that the number _DOES_ convey a message. I have often
seen people who fully well deserved a 4 (not a 5, mind you), but who had to get
a 3 because 4 didn't exist, look at their review in retrospect and _totally_
ignore the text and the clear messages in it and say "Well, at least I got
a 3!". That's just plain not right, and that points to the real problem. The
number does have an impact and a message of its own.

  Let me cite an example of something that has happened recently. I'd prefer
not to quote sources here, or name names, however if you have a pressing
need for documented evidence I can provide some contacts offline. You may
consider it "just a story" if you like, or a "rumor", but the fact of
the matter is I have every reason to trust my source. 

  The head of one organization decided that 4's had been improperly removed
and felt that they should be re-instated. S/He told her/his reports to once
again begin using 4's. They transmitted the information down through their
organizations and paperwork began to be sent to personnel with the 4's.
When personnel tried to enter the 4's into the system (for EDCF's, etc.),
the system wouldn't take them, since the software was set up not to accept
4's. So to circumvent the system, personnel began entering all 4's as 3's!
WRONG, right? But isn't that just a corporate reinforcement of the wrong
message all over again?

-Jack

re. my .-1

> 4's. So to circumvent the system, personnel began entering all 4's as 3's!
			    ^^^^^^
  Sorry, that should have read "problem".

-Jack

    Jack,
    
    I'm not sure how someone can deserve a rating which no longer exists.
    If it were one of my charges who was not meeting the expectations
    of the job, they would have received a 5, but their performance
    appraisal would have made clear how much (or little) improvement
    was needed.
    
    Let's play out a few scenarios, assuming for a moment that '4' is
    a valid rating:
    
    Scenario 1
    
     An employee is performing somewhat below expectations. He receives a 
     '4' rating.  The performance appraisal notes the deficiencies and
     outlines a get well plan.  No salary review is undertaken.
    
    Scenario 2
    
     An employee is performing somewhat below expectations. He receives a 
     '5' rating.  The performance appraisal notes the deficiencies and
     outlines a get well plan.  No salary review is undertaken.
    
    Scenario 3
    
     An employee is performing well below expectations. He receives a 
     '5' rating.  The performance appraisal notes the deficiencies and
     outlines a get well plan.  No salary review is undertaken.
    
    In each of the three scenarios above, what difference did the number
    make?  I far as I can see, it adds nothing of value to the process.
    The best that might be said for scenario 1 is that the employees
    emotional reaction to the assessment might be mitigated somewhat
    by a rating of '4' instead of '5'; however, that has an undesireable
    effect of shifting the focus away from the appraisal and get well plan
    where it belongs.
    
    Al
    

> < Note 913.54 by POCUS::KOZAKIEWICZ "Shoes for industry" >
>    
>    Let's play out a few scenarios, assuming for a moment that '4' is
>    a valid rating:
...    
>    In each of the three scenarios above, what difference did the number
>    make?  I far as I can see, it adds nothing of value to the process.

The biggest difference is that a '5' prevents an employee from transferring
within the Company.  If the inability to meet expectations arose from a
fundamental mismatch is skills and needs, then a '4' would allow the employee
a development plan that involved getting out of the mismatch without
leaving the Company.
Or, we could let '5s' transfer...

- tom]

    Re: several recent replies, including .54 (Kozakiewicz):
    
    I think many of you have missed the point entirely.  With flexibility
    in the negative side of the rating system, certain administrative
    actions, such as denial of salary action, probation, and termination,
    can kick in automatically with a "5" rating, while a "4" can send a
    gentler message.  Without this flexibility, the justification must be
    read directly from the language of the review, which is, to say the
    least, a more ambiguous situation.  Not everyone can write clearly; few
    managers are elevated on the basis of their written communication
    skills.  Is there a standard Digital vocabulary for reviews, tied to
    performance levels?  Are there "1" words, "2" words, "3" words, and so
    forth?  Not that I know of.  The actual weight is in the minds of the
    manager and the employee.
    
    The astronomy department chairman at my college was from a European
    country, and has never mastered either written or spoken English.  He
    once described the top student of my class as "adequate," which
    scandalized the grad students; the word he meant, and the only word
    that applied in this student's case, was "outstanding."  No one would
    go to the chairman for  a letter of recommendation; it's tough to get
    into any graduate school, much less a good one, if your department
    chairman recommends you as an "adequate" student.
    
    As I've pointed out before in this topic, symmetry alone demands a "4"
    rating in this structure.  The arguments that there is no need for a
    "4" when there's a "5" available fail in the face of the "1" and "2"
    ratings.  Do we really need that level of ego-stroking?
    
    What would you think of this questionnaire:
    
    	Please rate our service:
    
    		1	Excellent
    		2	Very good
    		3	Good
    		4	Needs improvement
    
    Sounds pretty slanted and self-serving to me!  The company would have
    to work very hard to achieve an average rating below 3.0.
    
    Any child will tell you that a rating system of 1, 2, 3, and 5 is
    silly. 8^)