Conference 7.286::digital

    What does the number mean - 3 out of what, 10?

    The ratings are:
    
    	1  Exceptional performance
    	2  Exceeds job Requirements
    	3  Meets job Requirements
    	5  Fails to meet requirements
    
    There used to be a 4 (Requires development), but it disappeared a 
    year or two ago.

    That's because EVERYBODY requires development. Nice to know that
    no matter how well you perform, there is still someone out there
    who still isn't satisfied.

    In my not-very-humble opinion, requiring that the average performance
    rating in a department be 3 (or any other number) is unreasonable.
    People should be rated as individuals, without regard to the ratings
    of the other people in the department.  If a manager can bring his
    people up from 3s to 2s, he should be proud, because one of his
    jobs is to ``grow his people''.
    
    However, I think you have evidence that there is really no such
    requirement in your department.  From the evidence you got from
    Personnel, you were apparently lied to, since the average rating
    in your department did not come out "3".  The second explanation
    that was given to you, that your job was less valuable than the
    jobs of the engineers, was probably closer to the truth, but it
    smells bad to me also.  Managers are not required to give raises
    based on the performance evaluation.  They can give raises based
    on how valuable you are to the department, independent of your
    performance in your job.
    
    I suspect that the truth is that you are not considered as valuable
    to the department as the engineers, and that your manager tried
    to cover this up by lying to you about a requirement for an average
    performance rating.  When you found him out he told you the truth,
    but he was not considerate enough to revise your rating to be what
    you deserve.  Perhaps he knows that raises do not have to follow
    performance, but does not want to have to justify his prejudice
    towards engineers to his manager, so fudges your performance rating
    to avoid an argument.
    
    In either case, it sounds like you are in a bad situation.  Catching
    the boss in a lie is not a good way to improve your future prospects
    in that department.
        John Sauter

    Can you leave the group?  Look for greener pastures?

Re:.4
     I agree with you 100% that people should be rated as individuals.  I
guess my boss didn't fight for me enough to reverse that rating.  Has this
occured in other departments?  Is it wise to give the manager that much 
power (the ability to place a value on an individual and pay him accordingly),
and what about employee drive and initiative?

Re:.5
    The problem I'm having is that I like the people in my group (fellow
peons like myself), but I suppose that's not a good enough reason to
take that kind of treatment.

Dave

    re: .6--I think it is wise to allow a manager to place a value on
    an individual and pay him accordingly.  If an individual has a higher
    value in another department, then it is better for the company if
    the individual moves to that other department.
    
    Of course, it is possible for a manager to abuse this privilege.
    However, managers have lots of ways to abuse their authority, adding
    one more doesn't make the problem any worse.  A really bad manager
    will eventually be found out (by his manager) and removed.
    
    In my somewhat-more-humble opinion, liking the people in your group
    is a perfectly good reason to stay, even if you don't like the manager.
    You must judge which weighs more with you: the company of people
    you like and are comfortable with, versus the bad treatment you
    are getting from your management.  Changing departments is a risk,
    since you can't be sure about either the workers or the management
    in a new department.  Sometimes things get so bad that you feel
    that the risk is worthwhile.
        John Sauter

    I am in the same situation.  I had a number of differences of
    opinion and outright personality conflicts when I first joined this
    group, and they are somewhat reflected on this performance review.
    However, when I protested, many other explanations were also given:
    (1) 3 isn't so bad, (2) we can't rate everyone highly, (3) since
    I just came into the group, it would be hard to rate me higher,
    and (4) this leaves room for improvement.

    Since in my other jobs I got consistent 2's and 1's, I was somewhat
    shocked by this.  All I can suggest is, see your Personnel Rep.
    Here are your opions:

    1. See your boss and have the review changed.  (Sounds like you
       already tried that.)

    2. Write a rebuttal to be attached to the review.

    3. Don't sign the review.

    Note on the last: this is the FIRST time in ten years with the company
    that I have seen a review before it was written, and have also been
    asked to sign it!  Our personnel rep says that pre-review and signature
    is company policy, and is in the corporate personnel policy book.
    Interesting...

    General comment: I have had to write reviews in other companies
    and situations, and have also run into the rating system.  The Federal
    government review forms, in fact, encourage it.  When I asked if
    rating was a specific policy at DEC, the personnel rep said no.
    Each person is supposed to be rated individually.  In theory, an
    entire division could be rated 1's.

    I have seen managers in DEC rank individuals because of pay scales.
    Managers are only allowed so much for pay raises, and they tend
    to adjust each performance review to match the salaries.  Maybe
    your division (and mine) got a low budget for salaries this year...

re:-.1
       I have been with DEC for 5.5 years and I have never (like many
       people have said elsewhere) had to sign a performance review.

       My group was one of the most visible in the company, because
       we were responsible for the support and testing of both the
       VENUS (VAX 8600) and MORNING STAR (8650) programs and we are
       now currently working on the next line of mainframes (I really
       can't say what the name of it is). So I would doubt that we
       had a low budget for salaries (could be, but I would tend to
       doubt it).

Dave

    At least you got a review!  And this will help if you decide to
    seek greener pastures.  Before taking my current position, I went
    for 3+ years without *any* performance reviews, which made it somewhat
    difficult for my potential manager to evaluate me.
    
    Jon

    In the context of relatively large groups, there is a strong guideline
    to ensure a reasonable spread of ratings. This is done as part of
    the salary planning process each year. The guidelines, as I recall,
    were roughly:
    
    	10%	performance 1
    	40%	performance 2
    	50%	performance 3
    
    This is more a guideline that an enforced requirement. The real
    question is to ensure that the individuals are properly rated. Thus,
    these averages don't apply particularly well to smaller groups.
    
    My experience in over a dozen years of management is that despite
    a wide variety of groups and individuals backgrounds, large groups
    that are have properly evaluated individuals (and properly classified
    to begin with) tend to fall into this percentage split.

I'd like to expand on some thoughts caused by the remarks in .8 about
salary planning and performance appraisals.  Note the following;

1. Salary planning (a budgetary process) takes place at a fixed time
of year driven by our fiscal year.  In my experience this is usually
around April/May.  At this time each cost center manager MUST submit 
budget of money required to meet his/her salary plan.  They may not 
get all they want but they do plan for the size of the 'pot' at that
point.

2. Your raise is influenced by your rating.  The percentage range that
you can be given is based on performance (rating), what quartile in the 
salary range for your position you are currently in etc.  At least the 
performance (rating) metric is done at your annual review and at least
in theory IS NOT KNOWN at the time of salary planning.

Therefore in the salary planning process;

  Total salary budget for cost center = SUM ( Raises for all employees)

  Raise for employee X = (some known data i.e. current position in range
	   + Rating factor for employee X (this is NOT known at this point))

It's real hard to solve an equation with two unknowns like this, therefore
let's use this formula;

  Total salary budget for cost center = SUM ( Raises for all employees)

   Raise for all employees = (some known data i.e. current position in range
			+ some pre determined distribution of Rating factors)

Oh, look! The unknown is now known and the equation can be solved for budget!


It's not exactly fixed since the money can be shifted around among 
the employees in the cost center up until the raise is actually given.
But since the total budget is fixed, to give employee A a bigger raise
than you planned (he was a 3 but improved, is now a good person and 
deserves a 2) you have to "Rob Peter to pay Paul."

    re: the replies concerning the distribution curves.
    
    These distributions are funny things, and sometimes it's hard to
    convince managers the the Bell Curve is not a religion or even a
    desirable goal.
    
    When I was a high school science teacher, I got into an argument
    with the principal concerning my grades in class.  Over 90% of one
    of my classes passed, and well over half of those were A's.  He
    didn't like that distribution because it wasn't a bell curve.  I
    pointed out that this was an honors class, but couldn't resist adding
    that if teaching was REALLY effective, there wouldn't be any failures
    and most grades would tend toward the high end anyway.  The more
    effective the teaching and learning, and/or the brighter the class
    was, the more the grades would be skewed toward the top end.  Also,
    no one complained when the skew was opposite (over half the class
    failing).  The principal didn't buy it, and the grades were adjusted
    by the vice-principal (since I refused to alter them without a school
    administration hearing).
    
    I've seen this same "the-bell-curve-is-sacred" thinking elsewhere.
    It seems to be popping up at DEC, especially in small groups (as
    was mentioned in previous replies).

    The description in .12 is essentially accurate.
    
    Again, based on my experience as a manager, when one has a relatively
    large group, it is usually quite reasonable and fair to balance
    the shifting around as the plan is implemented. If anyone doubts
    this, I could show you the changes our group has made this year.
    It would be a violation of confidentiality to post the details here,
    however, every change I made is clearly supported and I would not
    be embarrassed to publish it to my group.
    
    If no good balance can be achieved within a group, then it is possible
    to manage at a higher level. For example, if I needed to increase
    someone's raise above the plan and did not see a balancing change
    within my group, I would go to my manager and have him find a balance.
    (I do the same for the managers that work for me if they can't find
    a balance.) Of course, we do the same if someone performs below
    their plan. And if there is no balancing effect within our group,
    we "return" the unused money up the chain.
    
    Good managers have always managed salaries this way. I was taught
    to do so when I first went into management in 1971. It always requires
    careful thought and hard work. But it does get somewhat more natural
    with experience.
    
    One of the ways that DIGITAL is establishing better operational
    controls (hence better profits, schedules, ...) is to get more managers
    to manage the salaries and promotions within their groups. This
    is resulting in more visibility to the process. But, when done right,
    it is a good process.
    
    Note that both salary ranges and "percentages per quartile" are
    very broad guidelines. Also, the amount of money a group is given
    to apply to raises is a function of many factors including:
    
    	- pay scales within the group vs the competition
    	- position of employees in the groups vs pay scales
    	- overall quality of the group to meet its commitments
    	- ability of the management to have managed saleries in
    		the past.
    
    The last point is to put some "teeth" into the importance of managers
    doing their job relative to managing pay.

    I agree with the comments Pete Conklin has made.  I'd like to add
    a few points about changes that have occurred since I've been a
    manager at DEC.  In the last few years there's been an attempt to
    take "pay for performance" seriously.  We used to peg the per cent
    raise to performance.  Now we're trying to get the ending salary
    to be positioned in the salary range based on the "per cent" of
    the job the employee is doing.  This is based on the theory that
    the longer you're in a job level, the more you learn about the job
    - and that there are smooth changes in your skill level, not sudden
    breaks when you get a promotion.  Personally, I think this makes
    a lot of sense - but, like any such system, there's a fair amount
    of gut feel involved.  The second change is an attempt to correct
    "grade inflation".  Since we never wanted to give an employee bad
    news, over the years the same performance has gotten progressively
    higher ratings.  The reiteration of the per cent of 1's etc. is
    an attempt to reverse this.  I admit I've found it hard to deliver
    this message to my own employees - and I keep praying that most
    of the rest of the managers are playing fair,too.  And we all have
    to remember Pete's comments about statistics not applying to small
    sample sizes.
    
    	Dee