Re: Performance Reviews

Win win situation for team and individual.

With my experience, 50% team performance and 50% individual peformacne have
better balance.

Regards
Cipson Thomas

[email protected] || +91 8606 55 77 99 (Mobile)
<http://meninweb.blogspot.com> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/meninweb>

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:36 AM, Ron Jeffries [email protected]
[SCRUMDEVELOPMENT] <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> Hi Charles,
>
> On May 26, 2015, at 9:51 PM, Charles Bradley - Professional Scrum Trainer
> and Coach [email protected] [SCRUMDEVELOPMENT] <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> I'm not seeing what you're talking about.  Can you be more specific?
>
>
> Reluctantly, here are some thoughts. Reluctant, because ideally they’d be
> addressed privately to Jeff, not to this group. But you did ask.
>
> In essence the core algorithm of the article comes down to:
>
>
>    1. Employee rates self;
>    2. Employee and reviewer discuss ratings;
>    3. Reviewer rates employee;
>    4. *Employee rating stands.*
>
>
> At this moment the reader is all *WTF, the employee rating stands??*.
> What follows doesn’t help alleviate the WTF.
>
> In particular this section:
>
> The higher rating supercedes the lower. If the reviewer gives a 4 and the
> team gives a 7, it is a 7 and so forth. This review is a form of 360 degree
> feedback where the review process is designed to surface gross disparities
> between market perception, customer perception, company perception, team
> perception, reviewer perception, and individual employee perception of
> their performance. Gross disparities are rare and should be dealt with on
> an exception basis.
>
> … seems to be saying that there is a team rating. Are we talking about a
> single employee, rated by their team? If so, there’s something missing
> above? Are we talking suddenly about how to rate a whole team (which could
> be a good review idea)? If so, then the first part should have said “Team
> rates itself”, etc ...
>
> The quoted section goes on to refer to a number of “perceptions”: market,
> customer, company, team, reviewer, individual. (Likely this should have
> been a new paragraph.) Either way,t the procedure itself only addresses
> what the reviewer and the individual do. Somehow a whole bunch of people
> seem to have popped into the equation. Compiler explodes with “undefined
> term” messages.
>
> Naturally, I can *imagine* an answer. the problem is, I can imagine many
> disparate ones, mostly wrong.
>
> One candidate answer is: “either the employee or reviewer may make
> [un]substantiated claims about the views of other individuals or groups
> regarding the employee’s performance”. If I guess that, which seems a
> possibly sensible thing to do, I’m still left with a huge gap in
> understanding how those claims would be created, used, assessed, or
> adjudicated. It also puts quite a burden on the other people involved,
> since in fairness, the employee and the reviewer should both be engaged in
> getting this information. (Together, one would have hoped, but together
> isn’t part of this scheme.)
>
> Another answer might be “use common sense”, which makes the questioner go
> away but each questioner goes away with a different answer in his head,
> since “common sense” is never common and often not sense.
>
> Overall, in my opinion, the article leaves too much to the imagination,
> which means that this advice will be used, if at all, in random unintended
> ways. The rubber doesn’t meet the road.
>
> Ron Jeffries
> ronjeffries.com
> If not now, when? -- Rabbi Hillel
>
>  
>